Hi, Mikael, Mikael Carneholm wrote: > An 0+1 array of 4 disks *could* be enough, but I'm still unsure how WAL > activity correlates to "normal data" activity (is it 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, > ...?) I think the main difference is that the WAL activity is mostly linear, where the normal data activity is rather random access. Thus, a mirror of few disks (or, with good controller hardware, raid6 on 4 disks or so) for WAL should be enough to cope with a large set of data and index disks, who have a lot more time spent in seeking. Btw, it may make sense to spread different tables or tables and indices onto different Raid-Sets, as you seem to have enough spindles. And look into the commit_delay/commit_siblings settings, they allow you to deal latency for throughput (means a little more latency per transaction, but much more transactions per second throughput for the whole system.) HTH, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
