Tom,
Thanks. Do I add the following to the postgresql.conf file?
ssl_renegotiation_limit = 0
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Software Architect/DBA/Project Manager
Web Services at Public Affairs
217-333-0382
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April
Campbell, Lance la...@illinois.edu writes:
Thanks. Do I add the following to the postgresql.conf file?
ssl_renegotiation_limit = 0
Right. The variable won't be listed in your existing file, likely,
because that option is new as of last month's updates.
regards, tom
All the disks are usually laid out in a single RAID 10 stripe . There
are no dedicated disks for the OS/WAL as storage is a premium
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Anj Adu wrote:
We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
I also want to add that with the perc 6i controllers..we have never
had issues. We have been running postgres nonstop for over 2 years and
sustaining a throughput of over 60-100 million messages a day without
breaking sweat. (postgres 8.1.9 on linux 32 bit )
I have to say I am impressed with the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
All the disks are usually laid out in a single RAID 10 stripe . There
are no dedicated disks for the OS/WAL as storage is a premium
You should at least investigate the performance difference of having a
separate volume for
With the increase in the number of disks that we can afford to have in
1 box..we will definitely plan on having WAL on dedicated disks.
Previously..we were stuck with the chassis limitation of 6 disks per
box.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Anj Adu fotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
With the increase in the number of disks that we can afford to have in
1 box..we will definitely plan on having WAL on dedicated disks.
Previously..we were stuck with the chassis limitation of 6 disks per
box.
Yeah, the
During the testing that I did when moving from pg7 to pg8 a few years back, I
didn't notice any particular performance
increase on a similarly-configured server.
That is, we've got 14 disks (15k rpm) striped in a single RAID10 array. Moving
the logs to an internal RAID
versus leaving them on
Peter, thank you for your efforts in try to help me and sorry for send the
message directly to you, not for the list.
No success yet - I'm starting (and stoping) manually the 2 extra services.
About the locale, I removed this option at initdb - I will try to solve this
after the service is
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Scott Whitney sc...@journyx.com wrote:
During the testing that I did when moving from pg7 to pg8 a few years back, I
didn't notice any particular performance
increase on a similarly-configured server.
That is, we've got 14 disks (15k rpm) striped in a single
Mac OS X 10.6.3
Built and installed PG 8.4.3 from source
Trying to start the server, I get could not create shared memory segment:
Invalid argument.
I've bumped my shmmax/shmall and related parameters as suggested in the README
for the one-click installer (which I installed and then uninstalled
Gavin Kistner phr...@mac.com writes:
Mac OS X 10.6.3
Built and installed PG 8.4.3 from source
Trying to start the server, I get could not create shared memory segment:
Invalid argument.
OSX is *notoriously* unfriendly about configuring shm parameters.
You look at it sidewise, it doesn't
On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
For comparison, I have these settings on my laptop:
pro:~ tgl$ cat /etc/sysctl.conf
kern.sysv.shmmax=33554432
kern.sysv.shmmin=1
kern.sysv.shmmni=32
kern.sysv.shmseg=8
kern.sysv.shmall=8192
and PG starts fine for me.
I'm not sure what
13 matches
Mail list logo
