These number are pretty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close to perfect infact. Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAID controller than will read indpendently from mirrors.Alex
On 8/8/06, Steve Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luke,Here are the results of two runs of 16G
First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is a sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true).Second, run bonnie++ benchmark against your disk array(s) to see what performance you are getting, and make sure
Luke,
Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS.
scsi disc array
xfs
,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1,0,16,3172,7,+,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+,+++,2484,8
scsi disc array
xfs
,16G,83320,99,155641,25,73662,10,81756,96,243352,18,1029.1,0,16,3119,10,
There is 64MB on the 6i and 192MB on the 642 controller. I wish the
controllers had a "wrieback" enable option like the LSI MegaRAID
adapters have. I have tried splitting the cache accelerator 25/75 75/25
0/100 100/0 but the results really did not improve.
SteveOn 8/7/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL P
The database data is on the drive array(RAID10) and the pg_xlog is on
the internal RAID1 on the 6i controller. The results have been poor.
I have heard that the 6i was actually decent but to avoid the 5i.
Joshua D. Drake
My guess is the controllers are garbage.
Can you run bonnie++ vers
Luke,
I'll do that then post the results. I ran zcav on it (default
settlings) on the disc array formatted XFS and its peak MB/s was around
85-90. I am using kernel 2.6.17.7. mounting the disc array with
noatime, nodiratime.
Thanks for your feedback.
Steve
On 8/7/06, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTEC
Steve,
On 8/5/06 4:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am do some consulting for an animal hospital in the Boston, MA area.
> They wanted a new server to run their database on. The client wants
> everything from one vendor, they wanted Dell initially, I'd advised
> against it. I rec
I am do some consulting for an animal hospital in the Boston, MA area.
They wanted a new server to run their database on. The client wants
everything from one vendor, they wanted Dell initially, I'd advised
against it. I recommended a dual Opteron system from either Sun or HP.
They settled on a DL3
Hi,
First of all I must tell that my reality in a southern brazilian city is
way different than what we read in the list. I was lookig for ways to
find the HW bottleneck and saw a configuration like:
"we recently upgraded our dual Xeon Dell to a brand new Sun v40z with 4
opterons, 16GB of me
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:02:52PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> Although I for one have yet to see a controller that actualy does this (I
> believe software RAID on linux doesn't either).
Linux' software RAID does. See earlier threads for demonstrations.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sess
Hi All, Thanks Richard for the additional link. The information is very useful. The restore completed successfully in 2.5 hours in the new 2GB box, with the same configuration parameters. I think if I can tweak the parameters a little more, I should be able to get it down to the 1 hr down t
Although I for one have yet to see a controller that actualy does this (I believe software RAID on linux doesn't either).Alex.On 8/7/06, Markus Schaber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi, Charles,
Charles Sprickman wrote:> I've also got a 1U with a 9500SX-4 and 4 drives. I like how the 3Ware> card scal
Tom Lane wrote:
Sorry, I was unclear: it's the age of your oldest transaction that
counts (measured by how many xacts started since it), not how many
cycles it's consumed or not.
With the 8.1 code it's possible for performance to degrade pretty badly
once the age of your oldest transaction exc
> Thank you very much for the information. The SHMMAX was set to 33554432,
> and that's why it
> failed to start the postmaster. Thanks for the link to the kernel resources
> article. I guess
> changing these parameters would require recompiling the kernel.
>
> Is there any work around w
>> Is this from LWLock or spinlock contention?
> Over a 20 second interval, I've got about 85 select()s and 6,230
> semop()s. 2604 read()s vs 16 write()s.
OK, so mostly LWLocks then.
>> Do you have any long-running transactions,
> Not long-running. We do have a badly behaving legacy app that
Hi, Saranya,
Saranya Sivakumar wrote:
> Thank you very much for the information. The SHMMAX was set to 33554432,
> and that's why it failed to start the postmaster. Thanks for the link to
> the kernel resources article. I guess changing these parameters would
> require recompiling the kernel.
As
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 12:26, hansell baran wrote:
> Hi. I'm new at using PostgreSQL. I have found posts related to this
> one but there is not a definite answer or solution. Here it goes.
> Where I work, all databases were built with MS Access. The Access
> files are hosted by computers with Window
Hi Richard, Thank you very much for the information. The SHMMAX was set to 33554432, and that's why it failed to start the postmaster. Thanks for the link to the kernel resources article. I guess changing these parameters would require recompiling the kernel. Is there any work around witho
Hi. I'm new at using PostgreSQL. I have found posts related to this one but there is not a definite answer or solution. Here it goes.Where I work, all databases were built with MS Access. The Access files are hosted by computers with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. A new server is on its way and only
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:42:23PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Most likely ext3 was used on the default configuration, which logs data
> > operations as well as metadata, which is what XFS logs. I don't think
> > I've seen any credible comparison between XFS and ext3 wi
> IpcMemoryCreate: shmget(key=5432001, size=85450752, 03600) failed: Invalid
> argument
> This error usually means that PostgreSQL's request for a shared memory
> segment exceeded your kernel's SHMMAX parameter. You can either
> reduce the request size or reconfigure the kernel with larger SH
Hi All, I tried to set shared_buffers= 1, turned off fsync and reload the config file. But I got the following error: IpcMemoryCreate: shmget(key=5432001, size=85450752, 03600) failed: Invalid argument This error usually means that PostgreSQL's request for a shared memorysegment excee
Tom Lane wrote:
We're seeing an average of 30,000 context-switches a sec. This problem
was much worse w/8.0 and got bearable with 8.1 but slowly resurfaced.
Is this from LWLock or spinlock contention? strace'ing a few backends
could tell the difference: look to see how many select(0,...) yo
Hi Richard, Thank you very much for the suggestions. As I said, we are stuck with 7.3.2 version for now. We have a Upgrade Project in place, but this backup is something we have to do immediately (we do not have enough time to test our application with 7.3.15 :( ) The checkpoint segments oc
Hi Markus,
As said, our environment really was a read-mostly one. So we didn't do
much inserts/updates and thus spent no time tuning those values and left
them as default settings.
Best regards,
Arjen
Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi, Arjen,
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
It was the 8core version
Hi, Scott and Hale,
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Make sure analyze has been run and that the statistics are fairly
> accurate.
It might also help to increase the statistics_target on the column in
question.
HTH,
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | So
Hi, Arjen,
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> It was the 8core version with 16GB memory... but actually that's just
> overkill, the active portions of the database easily fits in 8GB and a
> test on another machine with just 2GB didn't even show that much
> improvements when going to 7GB (6x1G, 2x 51
> We're seeing an average of 30,000 context-switches a sec. This problem
> was much worse w/8.0 and got bearable with 8.1 but slowly resurfaced.
Is this from LWLock or spinlock contention? strace'ing a few backends
could tell the difference: look to see how many select(0,...) you see
compared
Hi, Charles,
Charles Sprickman wrote:
> I've also got a 1U with a 9500SX-4 and 4 drives. I like how the 3Ware
> card scales there - started with 2 drives and got "drive speed"
> mirroring. Added two more and most of the bonnie numbers doubled. This
> is not what I'm used to with the Adaptec SCS
Hi, Reimer,
carlosreimer wrote:
> There is some performance problems with the server and I discovered with
> vmstat tool that there is some process writing a lot of information in
> the disk subsystem.
[..]
> I could I discover who is sending so many data to the disks?
It could be something trig
Saranya Sivakumar wrote:
Hi All,
I am trying to back up a full copy of one of our databases (14G) and
restore it on another server. Both databases run 7.3.2 version.
Though the restore completed successfully, it took 9 hours for the
process to complete. The destination server runs Fedora Core 3
Postgres 8.1.4
Slony 1.1.5
Linux manny 2.6.12-10-k7-smp #1 SMP Fri Apr 28 14:17:26 UTC 2006 i686
GNU/Linux
We're seeing an average of 30,000 context-switches a sec. This problem
was much worse w/8.0 and got bearable with 8.1 but slowly resurfaced.
Any ideas?
procs ---memory--
32 matches
Mail list logo
