Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658FA687F02 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:50:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93341-01 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:49:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:18:33.083778 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from FS.denninger.net (wsip-70-169-168-7.pn.at.cox.net [70.169.168.7]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1293687EFA for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:50:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by FS.denninger.net (8.14.3/8.13.1) with SMTP id o5MEVP5G045152 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:31:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from karl@denninger.net) Received: from [127.0.0.1] [192.168.1.40] by Spamblock-sys (LOCAL); Tue Jun 22 09:31:26 2010 Message-ID: <4C20C8E1.7060306@denninger.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:29:53 -0500 From: Karl Denninger User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Justin Graf CC: =?UTF-8?B?R3J6ZWdvcnogSmHFm2tpZXdpY3o=?= , postgres performance list Subject: Re: raid10 write performance References: <4C20BD33.1040908@magwerks.com> In-Reply-To: <4C20BD33.1040908@magwerks.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------020907080408080002050403" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100622-1, 06/22/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.783 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 201006/376 X-Sequence-Number: 39232 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020907080408080002050403 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070108030400080208080003" --------------070108030400080208080003 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Justin Graf wrote: > On 6/22/2010 4:31 AM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote: > >> Would moving WAL dir to separate disk help potentially ? >> >> > > Yes it can have a big impact. WAL on a separate spindle will make a HUGE difference in performance. TPS rates frequently double OR BETTER with WAL on a dedicated spindle. Strongly recommended. Be aware that you must pay CLOSE ATTENTION to your backup strategy if WAL is on a different physical disk. Snapshotting the data disk where WAL is on a separate spindle and backing it up **WILL NOT WORK** and **WILL** result in an non-restoreable backup. The manual discusses this but it's easy to miss.... don't or you'll get a NASTY surprise if something goes wrong..... -- Karl --------------070108030400080208080003 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Justin Graf wrote:
On 6/22/2010 4:31 AM, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
  
Would moving WAL dir to separate disk help potentially ?
   
    

Yes it can have a big impact.
WAL on a separate spindle will make a HUGE difference in performance.  TPS rates frequently double OR BETTER with WAL on a dedicated spindle.

Strongly recommended.

Be aware that you must pay CLOSE ATTENTION to your backup strategy if WAL is on a different physical disk.  Snapshotting the data disk where WAL is on a separate spindle and backing it up **WILL NOT WORK** and **WILL** result in an non-restoreable backup.

The manual discusses this but it's easy to miss.... don't or you'll get a NASTY surprise if something goes wrong.....

-- Karl
--------------070108030400080208080003-- --------------020907080408080002050403 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="karl.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="karl.vcf" YmVnaW46dmNhcmQNCmZuOkthcmwgRGVubmluZ2VyDQpuOkRlbm5pbmdlcjtLYXJsDQplbWFp bDtpbnRlcm5ldDprYXJsQGRlbm5pbmdlci5uZXQNCngtbW96aWxsYS1odG1sOlRSVUUNCnZl cnNpb246Mi4xDQplbmQ6dmNhcmQNCg0K --------------020907080408080002050403--