> >Some thoughts:
> >o the ability to split single tables across disks was essential for
> >scalability when disks were small. But with RAID, NAS, etc etc isn't
> >that a smaller issue now?
>
> Yes for size issues, I should think, especially if you have the
> money for a large RAID subsystem. But for throughput performance,
> control over which spindles particularly busy tables and indices
> go on would still seem to be pretty relevant, when they're being
> updated a lot. In order to minimize seek times.
>
> I really can't say how important this is in reality. Oracle-world
> folks still talk about this kind of optimization being important,
> but I'm not personally running any kind of database-backed website
> that's busy enough or contains enough storage to worry about it.
It is important when you have a few big tables that must be fast. One
objection I have always had to the HP logical volume manager is that it
is difficult to know what drives are being assigned to each logical
volume.
Seems if they don't have RAID, we should allow such drive partitioning.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026