Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > On 26 Sep 2002 at 19:05, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: <snip> > > fsync IIRC only affects the WAL buffers now but it may be quite expensive, > > especially considering it's running on every transaction commit. Oh, your > > WAL files are on a seperate disk from the data? > > No. Same RAID 5 disks..
Not sure if this is a good idea. Would have to think deeply about the controller and drive optimisation/load characteristics. If it's any help, when I was testing recently with WAL on a separate drive, the WAL logs were doing more read&writes per second than the main data drive. This would of course be affected by the queries you are running against the database. I was just running Tatsuo's TPC-B stuff, and the OSDB AS3AP tests. > I guess we forgot to monitor system parameters. Next on my list is running > vmstat, top and tuning bdflush. That'll just be the start of it for serious performance tuning and learning how PostgreSQL works. :) <snip> > Thanks once again... > Bye > Shridhar -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
