Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F8B9F9ABF for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:09:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30267-04 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:08:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9FF09F9B1C for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:09:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so455754nfh for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:09:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=TC9hIbK14gInIbsEUbmV3mNI26dd52/YE+beuDp0gysMN2pI0/emzD7nSWgL2+YywtuVfkTJqW1kTGp0ghSl4fXrgJ6NU/mkHqjYVCyXJ0s4MoFV3tZoJufRKvjg1N38jhSr1svAhabbwdWEW+ekHEfh071ltj5+F5sxGBtrz44= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ZvphvutJB//pHn4kVs2Hppq4Cw/wq5lAyFhoMSWI1xYHZ0fZzg84iWzfZ0WuaHtgyl7tVEku9dISdEIA2cXBNJ0ip1wVX+jbZbj+BJ/xc77Io1qISSTKGxh8XPWoDPQUHCc0AmxfBh+DTFpu9rbDGAHkx4G8TdPkVoKT0xnU/kk= Received: by 10.78.172.20 with SMTP id u20mr1208157hue.1187874540689; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.18.9 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:09:00 -0400 From: "Merlin Moncure" To: "postgresql performance list" Subject: asynchronous commit feature MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/259 X-Sequence-Number: 26389 I'm testing the new asynch commit feature on various raid configurations and my early findings is that it reduces the impact of keeping wal and data on the same volume. I have 10 disks to play with, and am finding that it's faster to do a 10 drive raid 10 rather than 8 drive raid 10 + two drive wal. anybody curious about the results, feel free to drop a line. I think this will be a popular feature. merlin