Scott Carey wrote:
This is because an fsync on ext3 flushes _all dirty pages in the file system_ 
to disk, not just those for the file being fsync'd.
One partition for WAL, one for data. If using ext3 this is essentially a performance requirement no matter how your array is set up underneath.

Unless you want the opposite of course. Some systems split out the WAL onto a second disk, only to discover checkpoint I/O spikes become a problem all of the sudden after that. The fsync calls for the WAL writes keep the write cache for the data writes from ever getting too big. This slows things down on average, but makes the worst case less stressful. Free lunches are so hard to find nowadays...

--
Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
g...@2ndquadrant.com   www.2ndQuadrant.us


--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

Reply via email to