X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE8F9DCAB7
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Dec 2005 10:15:26 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 93924-07
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Dec 2005 10:15:30 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from svr2.postgresql.org (svr2.postgresql.org [65.19.161.25])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13499DCAB6
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Dec 2005 10:15:24 -0400 (AST)
Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com
	[66.111.4.26])
	by svr2.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39C6F0B03
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Dec 2005 14:15:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from frontend1.internal (mysql-sessions.internal [10.202.2.149])
	by frontend1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D29D2298D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  9 Dec 2005 09:15:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web3.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.212])
	by frontend1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:15:24 -0500
Received: by web3.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99)
	id 24ED7B15A; Fri,  9 Dec 2005 09:15:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1134137725.8767.249418727@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: rLFPvL45+0tepntI0kvfNISo+Peq/3ChIDuEti07D8BD 1134137725
From: "Jeremy Haile" <jhaile@fastmail.fm>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.5  (F2.73; T1.15; A1.64; B3.05; Q3.03)
Subject: Re: opinion on disk speed
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:15:25 -0500
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.479 required=5 tests=[DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479]
X-Spam-Score: 0.479
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200512/258
X-Sequence-Number: 16079

> one other note, you probably don't want to use all the disks in a raid10 
> array, you probably want to split a pair of them off into a seperate
> raid1  array and put your WAL on it.

Is a RAID 1 array of two disks sufficient for WAL?  What's a typical
setup for a high performance PostgreSQL installation?  RAID 1 for WAL
and RAID 10 for data?  

I've read that splitting the WAL and data offers huge performance
benefits.  How much additional benefit is gained by moving indexes to
another RAID array?  Would you typically set the indexes RAID array up
as RAID 1 or 10?