> 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! ~ach -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/index-and-data-tablespaces-on-two-separate-drives-or-one-RAID-0-tp5715724p5715780.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
