Anj Adu wrote:
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
volumes we were dealing with. The RAID card should be from the same
manufacturer (
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Anj Adu wrote:
> Thanks Greg
>
> We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
> achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
> earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
> volumes we were dealing w
Thanks Greg
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
achieve redundancy. WAL archiving was difficult to support with the
earlier hardware we had ( 6x300G 10K disks Dell 2850) given the
volumes we were dealing with. The RAID card should be from the same
manufacturer (LSI
Anj Adu wrote:
I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
(extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day)
That's an average of 2314 per second, which certainly isn't easy to pull
off. You suggested you're already running this app. Do you have any
idea h
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Anj Adu wrote:
> Thank you all for the comments
>
> We have not benchmarked the new hardware yet..however..we do have
> existing hardware that deals with very high volumes and handle pretty
> well (Dell 2950 Intel 5430 8-cores with 6x450G 15K disks and 32G RAM -
>
Thank you all for the comments
We have not benchmarked the new hardware yet..however..we do have
existing hardware that deals with very high volumes and handle pretty
well (Dell 2950 Intel 5430 8-cores with 6x450G 15K disks and 32G RAM -
Perc 6iRaid controllers) with minimal IO wait . there are us
"Campbell, Lance" writes:
> PostgreSQL: 8.4.3
> I found the following in my error log:
> LOG: SSL error: unsafe legacy renegotiation disabled
> Anyone have a clue what this means?
It means your SSL library is maintained by someone with a clue ;-).
It's dealing with CVE-2009-3555 without simply b
PostgreSQL: 8.4.3
I found the following in my error log:
LOG: SSL error: unsafe legacy renegotiation disabled
Anyone have a clue what this means?
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Software Architect/DBA/Project Manager
Web Services at Public Affairs
217-333-0382
Supposing a 50% performance increase disk-by-disk with 15.000rpm vs
10.000rpm you would get better performance (100%) by doubling number of
disks versus using 15K rpm disk (50%).
However, you have to check other parameters, for example, if your RAID
controller can deal with such a high bandwidth or
Our experience shows that the 2.5 inch 10K disks have about the same
I/O rate as the 3.5 inch 15K disks. Ideal would be 15K 2.5 inch.
To answer you bigger question, it depends on how many threads are
running to perform the inserts. If you have lots (2-3 times as many threads
as disks) then your I
I forgot to add that the 24 10K disks are 2.5 inch and the 12 15K
disks are 3.5 inch
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Anj Adu wrote:
> I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
> (extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day) with a
> total storage of eith
I am faced with a hardware choice for a postgres data warehouse
(extremely high volume inserts..over 200 million records a day) with a
total storage of either
12 x 600G disks (15K) (the new Dell Poweredge C server)
or
24 x 600G (10K disks)
ALL direct attached storage.
I am leaning toward th
12 matches
Mail list logo
