Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2D0632D2C for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:19:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93667-07 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:19:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from 63.mail-out.ovh.net (63.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.185.56]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B0B6632771 for ; Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:19:04 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 28609 invoked by uid 503); 14 Jan 2010 23:19:48 -0000 Received: from b6.ovh.net (HELO mail180.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.56) by 63.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Jan 2010 23:19:48 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Jan 2010 23:19:02 -0000 Received: from par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net (HELO soyouz) (88.161.102.87) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Jan 2010 23:19:00 -0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:19:56 +0100 To: "fkater@googlemail.com" Subject: Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used? From: =?utf-8?Q?Pierre_Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Caillau?= =?utf-8?Q?d?= Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20100114142903.GB2973@comppasch2> <20100114212807.GF2384@comppasch2> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20100114212807.GF2384@comppasch2> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.62 (Linux) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11989426633044919883 X-Ovh-Remote: 88.161.102.87 (par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.589 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_DATE_PAST_20XX=3.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201001/320 X-Sequence-Number: 37200 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:28:07 +0100, fkater@googlemail.com wrote: > Pierre Frédéric Caillaud: > >> > 4 Core CPU 3 Ghz, WinXP, 1 TB SATA disk. >> >> Big CPU and slow disk... >> >> You should add another disk just for the WAL -- disks are pretty cheap >> these days. >> Writing the WAL on a second disk is the first thing to do on a >> configuration like yours, if you are limited by writes. >> It also reduces the fsync lag a lot since the disk is only doing WAL. > > Good idea -- where can I set the path to WAL? At install, or use a symlink (they exist on windows too !...) http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1901405/postgresql-wal-on-windows I've no idea of the other needed NTFS tweaks, like if there is a noatime/nodiratime ?...