On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Enrico Sirola <enrico.sirola@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Il giorno 17/mar/08, alle ore 20:38, Justin ha scritto: > > > it is a RAID 10 controller with 6 SAS 10K 73 gig drives. The > > server is 3 weeks old now. > > > > it has 16 gigs of RAM > > 2 quad core Xenon 1.88 Ghz processors > > 2 gig Ethernet cards. RAID controller perc 6/i with battery backup > > 512meg cache, setup not lie about fsync > > > > WAL is on a RAID 0 drive along with the OS > > Did you try with a single raid 10 hosting DB + WAL? It gave me much > better performances on similar hardware > Bye, Note that it can often be advantageous to have one big physical partition on RAID-10 and to then break it into logical partitions for the computer, so that you have a partition with just ext2 for the WAL and since it has its own file system you usually get better performance without having to actually hard partition out a separate RAID-1 or RAID-10 for WAL. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance