Hi! > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von > Guy Rouillier > Gesendet: Montag, 13. Dezember 2004 07:17 > An: PostgreSQL General > Betreff: [GENERAL] High volume inserts - more disks or more CPUs? > (1) Would we be better off with more CPUs and fewer disks or > fewer CPUs and more disks?
>From my experience, it's generally a good idea to have as many disks as >possible - CPU is secondary. Having enough RAM so that at least the frequently >accessed parts of your db data including the indexes fit completely into >memory is also a good idea. > (3) If we go with more disks, should we attempt to split > tables and indexes onto different drives (i.e., tablespaces), > or just put all the disks in hardware RAID5 and use a single > tablespace? RAID5 is not an optimum choice for a database; switch to RAID0+1 if you can afford the disk space lost - this yields much better insert performance than RAID5, as there's no parity calculation involved. There's another performance gain to be achieved by moving the WAL-files to another RAID-set than the database files; splitting tablespaces across RAID-sets usually won't do much for you in terms of performance, but might be convenient when you think about scaling in size. Kind regards Markus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
