On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:02:13 -0700
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The slowness is likely attributed to Vacuum's use of I/O. When vacuum
is running what does iostat -k 10 say?
Seems to be higher than normal - here is the output with vacuum run
without the other queries and the
Hello,
I need to install a new server for postgresql 8.3. It will run two
databases, web server and some background programs. We already have a
server but it is becoming slow and we would like to have something that
is faster. It is a cost sensitive application, and I would like to get
your
I need to install a new server for postgresql 8.3. It will run two
databases, web server and some background programs. We already have a
server but it is becoming slow and we would like to have something that
is faster. It is a cost sensitive application, and I would like to get
your
Question 1. We are going to use PostgreSQL 3.1 with FreeBSD. The pg
docs say that it is better to use FreeBSD because it can alter the
I/O priority of processes dynamically. The latest legacy release is
6.3 which is probably more stable. However, folks say that 7.0 has
superior performance on
I guess you mean postgresql 8.3.1? :-)
Yep. Sorry.
Question 3. FreeBSD 7.0 can use the ZFS file system. I suspect that UFS
2 + soft updates will be better, but I'm not sure. Which is better?
I'd stick with ufs2 atm. There are some issues with zfs which probably
have been ironed
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 03:14:49PM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
I have a query which is
prepare s_18 as select uid from user_profile where name like
$1::varchar and isactive=$2 order by name asc limit 250;
explain analyze execute s_18 ('atxchery%','t');
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Laszlo Nagy wrote:
We already have a server but it is becoming slow and we would like to
have something that is faster.
What's it slow at? Have you identified the bottlenecks and current
sources of sluggish behavior? That sort of thing is much more informative
to look
Laszlo Nagy wrote:
Question 4. How to make the partitions? This is the hardest question.
Here is my plan:
- the OS resides on 2 disks, RAID 1
- the databases should go on 8 disks, RAID 0 + 1
Make sure you understand the difference between RAID 1+0 and RAID 0+1..
I suspect you'll end up
Laszlo Nagy schrieb:
[...]
The RAID controller that I have selected can only handle 8 disks. I
guess I need to find a different one with 16 channels and use more
disks. So are you saying that with all disks in a bigger RAID 6 array, I
will get the most out of the hardware? In that case, I'll
