Jan Nielsen | 25 Apr 07:09 2012

Re: Configuration Recommendations

Oopps; looping in the list...

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Jan Nielsen <jan.sture.nielsen <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Robert Klemme <shortcutter <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Jan Nielsen
<jan.sture.nielsen <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> We are considering the following drive allocations:
>  * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN for PG data
>  * 4 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 10 on SAN  for PG indexes
>  * 2 x 15k SAS drives, XFS, RAID 1 on SAN  for PG xlog
>  * 1 x 15k SAS drive, XFS, on local storage for OS

Is it established practice in the Postgres world to separate indexes
from tables?  I would assume that the reasoning of Richard Foote -
albeit for Oracle databases - is also true for Postgres:


Very nice articles!
Conversely if you lump both on a single volume you have more
flexibility with regard to usage - unless of course you can
dynamically resize volumes.

To me it also seems like a good idea to mirror local disk with OS and
database software because if that fails you'll get downtime as well.
As of now you have a single point of failure there.

Agreed as well. 

These are good improvements - thanks for the review and references, Robert.




Kind regards


remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end

Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance <at> postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription: