1) RAID1+0 to make one big volume
2) RAID1 for OS/apps/etc, RAID1 for database
3) RAID1 for OS+xlog, RAID1 for database
4) RAID1 for OS+popular tables, RAID1 for rest of database
Lots of good info, thanks for all the replies. It seems to me then,
that the speed increase you'd get from
Right now, we have a few servers that host our databases. None of them
are redundant. Each hosts databases for one or more applications.
Things work reasonably well but I'm worried about the availability of
some of the sites. Our hardware is 3-4 years old at this point and I'm
not naive to
Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Dennis Muhlestein wrote:
RAID0 on two disks makes a disk failure that will wipe out the database
twice as likely. If you goal is better reliability, you want some sort
of RAID1, which you can do with two disks. That should increase read
throughput
Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Dennis Muhlestein wrote:
Since disks are by far the most likely thing to fail, I think it would
be bad planning to switch to a design that doubles the chance of a disk
failure taking out the server just because you're adding some
server-level
A B wrote:
So, it is time to improve performance, it is running to slow.
AFAIK (as a novice) there are a few general areas:
1) hardware
2) rewriting my queries and table structures
3) using more predefined queries
4) tweek parameters in the db conf files
Of these points:
1) is nothing I can do
