Hello.
We have made some performance tests with DRBD and Postgresql 8.2.3. We
have two identical servers in a cluster (Dell 2950) with a partition of
100 GB managed by DRBD: once we checked Postgres keeping his data folder
in a local partition, the second time we moved the data folder in the
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Tobias Brox wrote:
Advantages:
1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
Benchmark it. It is extremely unlikely that you'll get I/O *as good as*
DAS at a similar price point.
2. Easier to upgrade the disk capacity
Is this an issue? You may
Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
Hello.
We have made some performance tests with DRBD and Postgresql 8.2.3. We
have two identical servers in a cluster (Dell 2950) with a partition of
100 GB managed by DRBD: once we checked Postgres keeping his data folder
in a local partition, the second time we
We're also considering to install postgres on SAN - that is, my boss is
convinced this is the right way to go.
Advantages:
1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
2. Easier to upgrade the disk capacity
3. Easy to set up warm standby functionality. (Then again, if the
postgres server
On 9/7/07, Maila Fatticcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, working with the database in DRBD, we had two writes instead
of only one but we are a bit disappointed about the low results. We
would like to know if there is any way to improve the performance in
order to have a 3/4 rate
On 9/7/07, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Scott Marlowe:
And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process
opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means
that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable failures
of your
Richard Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a snippet of my log output (I can give more if necessary):
Sep 5 18:38:57 tii-db2.oaktown.iparadigms.com Out of Memory: Kill
process 11696 (postgres) score 1181671 and children.
My understanding is that if any one postgres process's memory
Hi Thomas,
PostgreSQL does scale up very well. But you have to keep in mind that
this also depends on profile of the application you're on PostgreSQL.
Insufficient memory and slow disk systems can interfere PostgreSQL.
Another issue is contention if the server has more than 4 cpus.
(Please check
Richard Yen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My understanding is that if any one postgres process's memory usage, plus the
shared memory, exceeds the kernel limit of 4GB, then the kernel will kill the
process off. Is this true? If so, would postgres have some prevention
mechanism that would
I've recently run into problems with my kernel complaining that I ran
out of memory, thus killing off postgres and bringing my app to a
grinding halt.
I'm on a 32-bit architecture with 16GB of RAM, under Gentoo Linux.
Naturally, I have to set my shmmax to 2GB because the kernel can't
Richard Yen wrote:
Hi All,
I've recently run into problems with my kernel complaining that I ran
out of memory, thus killing off postgres and bringing my app to a
grinding halt.
I'm on a 32-bit architecture with 16GB of RAM, under Gentoo Linux.
Naturally, I have to set my shmmax to 2GB
Hi All,
I've recently run into problems with my kernel complaining that I ran
out of memory, thus killing off postgres and bringing my app to a
grinding halt.
I'm on a 32-bit architecture with 16GB of RAM, under Gentoo Linux.
Naturally, I have to set my shmmax to 2GB because the kernel
I'm getting a san together to consolidate my disk space usage for my
servers. It's iscsi based and I'll be pxe booting my servers from it.
The idea is to keep spares on hand for one system (the san) and not have
to worry about spares for each specific storage system on each server.
This also
Scott,
Well, there've been a lot of issues with anti-virus and postgresql not
getting along. I wonder if pgsql takes out a stronger lock, and when
it can't get it then the failure happens. Not familiar enough with
windows to do more than speculate.
without touching the file-concurrency
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 09:06:53AM -0700, Richard Yen wrote:
My understanding is that if any one postgres process's memory usage,
plus the shared memory, exceeds the kernel limit of 4GB,
On a 32 bit system the per-process memory limit is a lot lower than 4G.
If you want to use 16G
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 12:26:23AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
consider is this: your SAN starts having funky problems, and your
database is down because of it. You call the vendor. They find out
you're running CentOS instead of RHEL and say that's the cause of your
problem (even though it
* Scott Marlowe:
And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process
opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means
that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable failures
of your database.
I think most of them open the file in
* Arjen van der Meijden:
The disadvantage of using Areca or 3Ware is obviously the lack of
support in A-brand servers and the lack of support for SAS-disks. Only
recently Areca has stepped in the SAS-market, but I have no idea how
easily those controllers are integrated in standard servers
We are currently running our database against on SAN share. It looks like this:
2 x RAID 10 (4 disk SATA 7200 each)
Raid Group 0 contains the tables + indexes
Raid Group 1 contains the log files + backups (pg_dump)
Our database server connects to the san via iSCSI over Gig/E using
jumbo
* Gregory Stark:
You might also tweak /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory but I don't remember what
the values are, you can search to find them.
2 is the interesting value, it turns off overcommit.
However, if you're tight on memory, this will only increase your
problems because the system fails
On Friday 07 September 2007 10:56, Bryan Murphy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our database server connects to the san via iSCSI over Gig/E using
jumbo frames. File system is XFS (noatime).
Throughput, however, kinda sucks. I just can't get the kind of
throughput to it I was hoping to get.
A
Bryan Murphy wrote:
Our database server connects to the san via iSCSI over Gig/E using
jumbo frames. File system is XFS (noatime).
...
Throughput, however, kinda sucks. I just can't get the kind of
throughput to it I was hoping to get. When our memory cache is blown,
the database can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Hodgson wrote:
On Friday 07 September 2007 10:56, Bryan Murphy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our database server connects to the san via iSCSI over Gig/E using
jumbo frames. File system is XFS (noatime).
Throughput, however, kinda sucks. I
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:37 +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
protocol C;
Try protocol B instead.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Tobias Brox wrote:
We're also considering to install postgres on SAN - that is, my boss is
convinced this is the right way to go.
Advantages:
1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
Shockingly, the salesman is probably lying to you. The very concept of
SAN says
On Sep 6, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'd recommend against Dell unless you're at a company that orders
computers by the hundred lot. My experience with Dell has been that
unless you are a big customer you're just another number (a small one
at that) on a spreadsheet.
I order
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Tobias Brox wrote:
We're also considering to install postgres on SAN - that is, my boss is
convinced this is the right way to go.
Advantages:
1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
In
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Tobias Brox wrote:
We're also considering to install postgres on SAN - that is, my boss is
convinced this is the right way to go.
Advantages:
1. Higher I/O (at least the salesman claims so)
only if you buy better disks for the SAN then for the local system (note
that
--On Freitag, September 07, 2007 20:00:16 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:37 +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
protocol C;
Try protocol B instead.
But that would have an impact on transaction safety, wouldn't it? It will
return immediately after
29 matches
Mail list logo
