On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 00:20, Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@svana.org wrote:
That, and a good RAID controller with BBU cache will go a long way to
relieving the pain of fsync.
Well a BBU cache RAID is helpful, but fsyncs are a minor problem in
data warehouse workloads, since inserts are done
Hey,
In an attempt to NOT pollute the thread started by Kjetil Nygård, I decided
to ask a very similar question with likely different data.
I am interested in hearing recommendations on hardware specs in terms of
Drives/RAM/shared_buffers/CPUs. I have been doing some research/testing,
and am
On 03/21/12 2:18 PM, Jason Herr wrote:
I have my own theories based on what I've read and my puttering. I
think I can get away with a disk for the OS, disk for the WAL, disk
for the large table (tablespaces) and a disk for the rest. And when I
say disk I mean storage device. I'm thinking
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:58:43PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
On 03/21/12 2:18 PM, Jason Herr wrote:
I have my own theories based on what I've read and my puttering.
I think I can get away with a disk for the OS, disk for the WAL,
disk for the large table (tablespaces) and a disk for the
On 03/21/12 3:20 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
That, and a good RAID controller with BBU cache will go a long way to
relieving the pain of fsync.
even better than BBU cache is the newer 'flash backed caches'. works
the same, but uses a supercap rather than a battery, and backs the cache
