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 401E59DCAEF for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 04:12:41 -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 58502-05 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 04:12:40 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net (smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAA69DCAEE for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 04:12:38 -0400 (AST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=SwiSTECHiudR+HN1s1XseXu23NI408nh6W9FUpQ5Nl+29orqMFzZ5m3XQMwPsydZ; h=Received:Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [70.22.193.119] (helo=ron-6d52adff2a6.earthlink.net) by smtpauth07.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EjXwC-0001YU-VW; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:12:37 -0500 Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.0.20051206030948.01dd4bb0@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 03:12:31 -0500 To: Thomas Harold ,pgsql-performance@postgresql.org From: Ron Subject: Re: two disks - best way to use them? In-Reply-To: <4395273B.90902@tgharold.com> References: <00fb01c5f772$59471410$0200a8c0@dell8200> <6.2.5.6.0.20051202145746.01dc7b68@earthlink.net> <43946148.9010607@tgharold.com> <43946EA1.8090908@tgharold.com> <4395273B.90902@tgharold.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-ELNK-Trace: acd68a6551193be5d780f4a490ca69563f9fea00a6dd62bcec9e5ce382ab44dff2238b7f05c4ac12350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 70.22.193.119 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.359 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.120, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479] X-Spam-Score: 0.359 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/144 X-Sequence-Number: 15965 At 12:52 AM 12/6/2005, Thomas Harold wrote: >David Lang wrote: > >>in that case you logicly have two disks, so see the post from Ron >>earlier in this thread. > >And it's a very nice performance gain. Percent spent waiting >according to "top" is down around 10-20% instead of 80-90%. While >I'm not prepared to benchmark, database performance is way up. The >client machines that are writing the data are running closer to 100% >CPU (before they were well below 50% CPU utilization). For accuracy's sake, which exact config did you finally use? How did you choose the config you finally used? Did you test the three options or just pick one? Ron