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 902599DC98F for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:03:00 -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 78756-06 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:03:00 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mailhost.intellivid.com (mailhost.intellivid.com [64.32.200.11]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7502C9DC959 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:02:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from spectre.intellivid.com (spectre.intellivid.com [192.168.2.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by newmail.intellivid.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AD8F1810A; Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: improving write performance for logging From: Ian Westmacott To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060106163732.GL3902@pervasive.com> References: <43BB0C5C.8020207@computer.org> <1136382865.24450.7.camel@spectre.intellivid.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060104092139.01c37da0@earthlink.net> <1136390438.24450.49.camel@spectre.intellivid.com> <20060106010822.GK43311@pervasive.com> <1136556006.31602.5.camel@spectre.intellivid.com> <20060106163732.GL3902@pervasive.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intellivid Corp. Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:02:57 -0500 Message-Id: <1136574178.31602.13.camel@spectre.intellivid.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.12 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120] X-Spam-Score: 0.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/42 X-Sequence-Number: 16520 On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 10:37 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > The problem is that if you lose WAL or the data, you've lost everything. > So you might as well use raid0 for the data if you're using it for WAL. > Or switch WAL to raid1. Actually, a really good controller *might* be > able to do a good job of raid5 for WAL. Or just use raid10. If the WAL is lost, can you lose more than the data since the last checkpoint? -- Ian Westmacott Intellivid Corp.