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 C99369DCAD6 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:08:20 -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 50518-09 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:08:23 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from flake.decibel.org (unknown [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5729DCA6F for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:08:18 -0400 (AST) Received: by flake.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 486963982E; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:22 -0600 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: Ian Westmacott Cc: Ron , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: improving write performance for logging Message-ID: <20060106010822.GK43311@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1136390438.24450.49.camel@spectre.intellivid.com> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.075 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075] X-Spam-Score: 0.075 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/26 X-Sequence-Number: 16504 On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 11:00:38AM -0500, Ian Westmacott wrote: > The WAL is a 2-spindle (SATA) RAID0 with its own controller (ext3). > The tables are on a 10-spindle (SCSI) RAID50 with dual U320 > controllers (XFS). This is overkill for writing and querying the data, > but we need to constantly ANALYZE and VACUUM in the > background without interrupting the inserts (the app is 24x7). The > databases are 4TB, so these operations can be lengthy. How come you're using RAID50 instead of just RAID0? Or was WAL being on RAID0 a typo? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461