Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92F6632A9A for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:04:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90775-08 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:04:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from oak.highrise.ca (oak.highrise.ca [70.38.99.169]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F100E632845 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:04:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oak.highrise.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7682AC2BC; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:04:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:04:21 -0500 From: Aidan Van Dyk To: Alvaro Herrera Cc: Kevin Grittner , Jesper Krogh , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: moving pg_xlog -- yeah, it's worth it! Message-ID: <20100211180421.GE14128@oak.highrise.ca> References: <4B71358E020000250002F0E4@gw.wicourts.gov> <4B718BDB.8080807@krogh.cc> <4B7139DD020000250002F0E9@gw.wicourts.gov> <4B73EE95020000250002F1CC@gw.wicourts.gov> <20100211175752.GB3145@alvh.no-ip.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="j2AXaZ4YhVcLc+PQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100211175752.GB3145@alvh.no-ip.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.59 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.850, BAYES_20=-0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201002/191 X-Sequence-Number: 37612 --j2AXaZ4YhVcLc+PQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline * Alvaro Herrera [100211 12:58]: > Hmm, so maybe the performance benefit is not from it being on a separate > array, but from it being RAID1 instead of RAID5? Or the cumulative effects of: 1) Dedicated spindles/Raid1 2) More BBU cache available (I can't imagine the OS pair writing much) 3) not being queued behind data writes before getting to controller 3) Not waiting for BBU cache to be available (which is shared with all data writes) which requires RAID5 writes to complete... Really, there's *lots* of variables here. The basics being that WAL on the same FS as data, on a RAID5, even with BBU is worse than WAL on a dedicated set of RAID1 spindles with it's own BBU. Wow! ;-) -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, aidan@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave. --j2AXaZ4YhVcLc+PQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFLdEaluVxNPsxNPScRAnMPAJ0UyWH5L3m4B8nLL5RSES3LMI/yUACbBvTu Lsb9J62Vr5zt+VlFHbNBQYc= =uw4U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --j2AXaZ4YhVcLc+PQ--