Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6B71337B56 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 05:56:00 -0400 (AST) 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 49600-09 for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:55:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from 64.mail-out.ovh.net (64.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.185.65]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 101DD1337B4E for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 05:55:52 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 5475 invoked by uid 503); 24 Dec 2010 09:38:58 -0000 Received: from b9.ovh.net (HELO mail411.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 64.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 24 Dec 2010 09:38:58 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 24 Dec 2010 11:55:50 +0200 Received: from par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net (HELO apollo13) (lists%peufeu.com@88.161.102.87) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 24 Dec 2010 11:55:49 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: concurrent IO in postgres? References: <4D13FC03.5090001@agliodbs.com> Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:55:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Pierre C" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D13FC03.5090001@agliodbs.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Linux) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 7936749919247402545 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=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/306 X-Sequence-Number: 41758 I wonder how the OP configured effective_io_concurrency ; even on a single drive with command queuing the fadvise() calls that result do make a difference...