On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:51 PM, ach <alanchines@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My fastest postgresql servers have everything on one raid10, using 16 or
> 20 15000 rpm SAS2 drives on a 1gb flash-backed cache controller.
Thank you - that affirms what'd been my own growing supposition, and the
plan
> why?
Really? ...Well, I mean, I'd just been going with what I'd seen asserted as
the solid baseline position: WAL should be on its own separate drive,
devoid of any interference and/or interruption other than just writing WAL.
To see that challenged is surprising; are you saying my interpretation on
that point would be incorrect, and that assumption would be wrong?
Thank you again for your feedback!
