Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC32B6330F5 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:15:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14686-04 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:15:03 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F566330FE for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:15:03 -0400 (AST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so717231yxj.73 for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:15:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xjBVIO/kubFaKg3Fw1xqLqK7+4NUiRr1p0ZcK1Ri/uQ=; b=A19oPdGYrl5KORIoTjLzIl708pqVI/P3GF64GenZNBswFFLQOx9lbed9KxMJAzD/Ee n0SrQ6cXXuo3lofzYDOLA3DcWkuaorqG2E2DsPCDY1gOsru6Ekb3tPYRTNoLhtZtMDzW 4LelrtAs/Ts0VBe+zYd0dPeLGRyiNrOo9BcUA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HYrRjXn1P/ZDR8D86uw2v0KqvmGCh4qH9xUZl0ieFIwtg+xOIviPsOSXbkcAk5t9Ov mdqA33ZqQ+3Z9F95HoBk/koBLtGEnrH1ioSVovPqIGidvDDAX/zvjlK2uHlC5LxVWQka 8ih6lsCRhdnX7BrCp5XbDH2bQxrNkq/kEeI0E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.52.2 with SMTP id z2mr2477281ybz.128.1234563302925; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:15:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4995EC90.5020200@musicreports.com> References: <4995ABC0.4090401@musicreports.com> <4995EC90.5020200@musicreports.com> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:15:02 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Vacuum wait time problem From: Scott Marlowe To: Roger Ging Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200902/91 X-Sequence-Number: 31312 On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Roger Ging wrote: Oh yeah, also, any chance of testing your RAID array in RAID-10 some day? RAID5 anything tends to be pretty slow at writes, especially random ones, and RAID-10 may give you a lot more bandwidth where you need it, on the write side of the equation.