> 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!
I wouldn't make any assumptions, and benchmark various configurations using your hardware and your data usage pattern. Sometimes "common knowledge" doesn't apply to your specific problem.
