On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:56:54PM -0400, Chris Hoover wrote:

> I don't have real numbers to give you, but we know that our systems
> are hurting i/o wise and we are growing by about 2GB+ per week (net). 
> We actually grow by about 5GB/week/server.  However, when I run my
> weekly maintenance of vacuum full, reindex, and the vacuum analyze, we
> end up getting about 3GB back.  Unfortunately, I do not have the i/o
> bandwidth to vacuum during the day as it causes major slowdowns on our
> system.  Each night, I do run a vacuum analyze across all db's to try
> and help.  I also have my fsm parameters set high (8000000 fsm pages,
> and 5000 fsm relations) to try and compensate.


> Right now, we are still on 7.3.4.  However, these ideas would be
> implemented as part of an upgrade to 8.x (plus, we'll initialize the
> new clusters with a C locale).

If you were on a newer version, I'd suggest that you use the cost-based
vacuum delay, and vacuum at least some of the tables more often.  This
way you can reduce the continual growth of the data files without
affecting day-to-day performance, because you allow the VACUUM-inflicted
I/O to be interleaved by normal query execution.

Sadly (for you), I think the cost-based vacuum delay feature was only
introduced in 8.0.

Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
Officer Krupke, what are we to do?
Gee, officer Krupke, Krup you! (West Side Story, "Gee, Officer Krupke")

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to