Thanks for the advice, Rick. I have an 8 disk chassis, so possible extension paths down the line are adding raid1 for WALs, adding another RAID10, or creating a 8 disk RAID10. Would LVM make this type of addition easier?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Rick Otten <rottenwindf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) I'd go with xfs. zfs might be a good alternative, but the last time I > tried it, it was really unstable (on Linux). I may have gotten a lot > better, but xfs is a safe bet and well understood. > > 2) An LVM is just an extra couple of commands. These days that is not a > lot of complexity given what you gain. The main advantage is that you can > extend or grow the file system on the fly. Over the life of the database > it is quite possible you'll find yourself pressed for disk space - either > to drop in more csv files to load with the 'copy' command, to store more > logs (because you need to turn up logging verbosity, etc...), you need more > transaction logs live on the system, you need to take a quick database > dump, or simply you collect more data than you expected. It is not always > convenient to change the log location, or move tablespaces around to make > room. In the cloud you might provision more volumes and attach them to the > server. On a SAN you might attach more disk, and with a stand alone > server, you might stick more disks on the server. In all those scenarios, > being able to simply merge them into your existing volume can be really > handy. > > 3) The main advantage of partitioning a single volume (these days) is > simply that if one partition fills up, it doesn't impact the rest of the > system. Putting things that are likely to fill up the disk on their own > partition is generally a good practice. User home directories is one > example. System logs. That sort of thing. Isolating them on their own > partition will improve the long term reliability of your database. The > main disadvantage is those things get boxed into a much smaller amount of > space than they would normally have if they could share a partition with > the whole system. > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:28 PM, dstibrany <dstibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm about to install a new production server and wanted some advice >> regarding >> filesystems and disk partitioning. >> >> The server is: >> - Dell PowerEdge R430 >> - 1 x Intel Xeon E5-2620 2.4GHz >> - 32 GB RAM >> - 4 x 600GB 10k SAS >> - PERC H730P Raid Controller with 2GB cache >> >> The drives will be set up in one RAID-10 volume and I'll be installing >> Ubuntu 14.04 LTS as the OS. The server will be dedicated to running >> PostgreSQL. >> >> I'm trying to decide: >> >> 1) Which filesystem to use (most people seem to suggest xfs). >> 2) Whether to use LVM (I'm leaning against it because it seems like it >> adds >> additional complexity). >> 3) How to partition the volume. Should I just create one partition on / >> and >> create a 16-32GB swap partition? Any reason to get fancy with additional >> partitions given it's all on one volume? >> >> I'd like to keep things simple to start, but not shoot myself in the foot >> at >> the same time. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://postgresql.nabble.com/Filesystem-and-Disk-Partitioning-for-New-Server-Setup-tp5889074.html >> Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> ) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >> > > > -- *THIS IS A TEST*
