On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 2008/11/5 Christian Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
This is wrong. RAID5 is slower than RAID1.
You should go for RAID1+0 for fast an
"Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/11/5 Christian Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
>>>
>>> This is wrong. RAID5 is slower than RAID1.
>>> You should go for RAID1+0 for fast and reliable storage. Or RAID0 for
>>> even faster but unreliable.
>>>
>>
>> I did n
2008/11/5 Christian Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
>>
>> This is wrong. RAID5 is slower than RAID1.
>> You should go for RAID1+0 for fast and reliable storage. Or RAID0 for
>> even faster but unreliable.
>>
>
> I did not find a clear statement about this. I agree that RAID1
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 08:13:10AM +0100, Christian Schröder wrote:
> Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
> >This is wrong. RAID5 is slower than RAID1.
> >You should go for RAID1+0 for fast and reliable storage. Or RAID0 for
> >even faster but unreliable.
> >
> I did not find a clear statement about this. I
On 2008-11-05 08:13, Christian Schröder wrote:
> If I have 5 disks available, how should I use them to get best
> performance without the risk of severe data loss?
What percentage of your usage are writes? What do you need the most:
high throughput or minimal latency?
> How important is data in
Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
This is wrong. RAID5 is slower than RAID1.
You should go for RAID1+0 for fast and reliable storage. Or RAID0 for
even faster but unreliable.
I did not find a clear statement about this. I agree that RAID10 would
be better than RAID5, but in some situations RAID5 at lea
On 2008-10-31 09:01, Christian Schröder wrote:
> We will now move the database to a raid5
> (which should be faster than the raid1)
This is wrong. RAID5 is slower than RAID1.
You should go for RAID1+0 for fast and reliable storage. Or RAID0 for
even faster but unreliable.
Regards
Tometzky
--
.
I too have used a symlink for some time (years) to put temp onto
dedicated disks without any problems. I am not sure if 8.3 is
different but I symlink the directory: base/pgsql_tmp
Aaron Thul
http://www.chasingnuts.com
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Sam Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:01:29AM +0100, Christian Schrrrder wrote:
> So I would like
> to use a faster disk for these temporary files, too, but I could not
> find where the temporary files are located. Is there a separate
> directory? I have found a "pgsql_tmp" directory inside of the database
Christian Schröder wrote:
So I would like to use a faster disk for these temporary files, too,
but I could not find where the temporary files are located. Is there a
separate directory? I have found a "pgsql_tmp" directory inside of the
database directories ("base//pgsql_tmp"). Is this what I'm
Hi list,
I want to optimize the performance of our PostgreSQL 8.2 server. Up to
now the server has a raid1 where the whole database is located
(including tha WAL files). We will now move the database to a raid5
(which should be faster than the raid1) and will also move the WAL to a
separate di
11 matches
Mail list logo
