X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9686111F6797 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:49:45 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: 1.217 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.217 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=2.432, SPF_SOFTFAIL=1.384] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2v8srakVz89a for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:49:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B0711F6899 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:49:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.132.172]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IXP00AT1NI5WFY3@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 06:49:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B696E8D7 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:49:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 32330-02 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:49:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 256DD6EACD; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:49:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:49:14 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Inserts optimization? In-reply-to: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20060414114911.GG32678@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us References: <443DA715.4060606@gmail.com> <9549.1144903344@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20060414055923.GX49405@pervasive.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 X-Archive-Number: 200604/329 X-Sequence-Number: 18413 >On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: >>In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set? >>Would it be better: >>4 disks in RAID10 Data >>2 disks RAID 1 WALL >>2 hot spares I guess the first question is why 2 hot spares? You don't have many spindles, so you don't want to waste them. It might turn out that a larger array with more spindles with outperform a smaller one with fewer, regardless of RAID level (assuming a decent battery-backed cache). You might try 5 RAID5 2 RAID1 1 spare Mike Stone