Re: drive configuration for a new server
От | Ben |
---|---|
Тема | Re: drive configuration for a new server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0702021048010.8626@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: drive configuration for a new server (Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Thanks Jeff, this was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Jeff Frost wrote: > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Ben wrote: > >> I'm looking to replace some old crusty hardware with some sparkling new >> hardware. In the process, I'm looking to move away from the previous >> mentality of having the Big Server for Everything to having a cluster of >> servers, each of which handles some discrete subset of data. But rackspace >> isn't inifinte, so I'm leaning towards cases that give me 8 drive bays. >> This leaves me with an interesting problem of how to configure these >> limited number of drives. >> >> I know that ideally I would have seperate spindles for WAL, indexes, and >> data. But I also know that I must be able to survive a drive failure, and I >> want at least 1TB of space for my data. I suspect with so few drive bays, I >> won't be living in an ideal world. >> >> With an even mix of reads and writes (or possibly more writes than reads), >> is it better to use RAID10 and have everything on the same partition, or to >> have data and indexes on a 6-drive RAID5 with WAL on its own RAID1? > > I'm surprised I haven't seen any responses to this, but maybe everyone's > tired of the what to do with X drives question...perhaps we need a > pgsql-perform FAQ? > > At any rate, I just recently built a new PG server for a client which had 8 > Raptors with an Areca 1160 controller that has the 1GB battery backed cache > installed. We tested a few different configurations and decided on an 8 disk > RAID10 with a separate WAL partition. The separate WAL partition was > marginally faster by a few percent. > > The 8 disk RAID5 was actually a bit faster than the 8 disk RAID10 in overall > throughput with the Areca, but we opted for the RAID10 because of reliability > reasons. > > The moral of the story is to test each config with your workload and see what > performs the best. In our case, the battery backed write cache seemed to > remove the need for a separate WAL disk, but someone elses workload might > still benefit from it. > > -- > Jeff Frost, Owner <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> > Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/ > Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954 >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: