Scott Marlowe wrote:
Personally, I use Fedora, and my servers have been quite stable. One of our
main web servers running Fedora:
It's not that there can't be stable releases of FC, it's that it's not
the focus of that project. So, if you get lucky, great! I can't
imagine running a
Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Michal Vitecek f...@mageo.cz wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm using PostgreSQL 8.3.8 running on a server with 2 Xeon CPUs, 4GB
RAM, 4+2 disks in RAID 5 and CentOS 5.3.
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 15:51 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
How do you provide effective support for a kernel that has 3000 back
ported patches against it?
This is again nonsense. Red Hat employs top kernel hackers. They do
maintain vanilla kernel. It is not hard for Red Hat to maintain their
own
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 15:16 +0530, S Arvind wrote:
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres
alone. The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200
+. Performance on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
Go for Debian:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 15:51 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
If somebody were to come to you with a *new* deployment request, what
would you recommend? Would you really recommend RHEL 5 *today*?
Well, I would, and I do recommend people. RHEL5 is well-tested, and
stable. Many hardware vendors support
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michal Vitecek f...@mageo.cz wrote:
Could the problem be the HW RAID card? There's ServerRAID 8k with 256MB
with write-back enabled. Could it be that its internal cache becomes
full and all disk I/O operations are delayed until it writes all
changes to hard
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Omar Kilani omar.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Xia,
Try this patch:
http://treehou.se/~omar/postgresql-8.4.1-array_sel_hack.patch
It's a hack, but it works for us. I think you're probably spending
most of your query time planning, and this patch helps speed
Robert,
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Omar Kilani omar.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Xia,
Try this patch:
http://treehou.se/~omar/postgresql-8.4.1-array_sel_hack.patch
It's a hack, but it works for us. I think you're
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
On 10/01/2009 03:44 PM, Denis Lussier wrote:
I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise
(except that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely).
On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a newer, popular
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Omar Kilani omar.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not really sure what the alternatives are -- it never really makes
sense to get the selectivity for thousands of items in the IN clause.
I've never seen a different plan for the same query against a DB with
that
Maybe - if the only thing the server is running is PostgreSQL. Show of
hands - how many users who ONLY install PostgreSQL, and use a bare
minimum OS install, choosing to not run any other software? Now, how
many people ALSO run things like PHP, and require software more
up-to-date than 3
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Craig James craig_ja...@emolecules.com wrote:
Fedora is a very nice project, but it's not suitable for production database
servers.
The trick is to write such a kick-ass application that before the
Fedora support window ends, the load has increased enough that
But you should plan on partitioning to multiple db servers up front
and save pain of conversion later on. A dual socket motherboard with
16 to 32 SAS drives and a fast RAID controller is WAY cheaper than a
similar machine with 4 to 8 sockets is gonna be. And if you gotta go
there anyway,
Robert Haas wrote (in part):
Also, I'd just like to mention that vi is a much better editor than
emacs.
That is not my impression. I have used vi from when it first came out (I
used ed before that) until about 1998 when I first installed Linux on one of
my machines and started using emacs. I
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:37 -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Robert Haas wrote (in part):
Also, I'd just like to mention that vi is a much better editor than
emacs.
That is not my impression. I have used vi from when it first came out (I
used ed before that) until about 1998 when I first
Hi Jean-David,
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 15:37 +0200, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Robert Haas wrote (in part):
Also, I'd just like to mention that vi is a much better editor than
emacs.
That is not my impression. I have used vi from when it first came out (I
used ed before that) until about
mnw21-modmine-r13features-copy=# select count(*) from project;
count
---
10
(1 row)
mnw21-modmine-r13features-copy=# select count(*) from intermineobject;
count
--
26344616
(1 row)
mnw21-modmine-r13features-copy=# \d intermineobject;
Table public.intermineobject
Column |
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Matthew Wakeling matt...@flymine.orgwrote:
mnw21-modmine-r13features-copy=# select count(*) from project;
count
---
10
(1 row)
mnw21-modmine-r13features-copy=# select count(*) from intermineobject;
count
--
26344616
(1 row)
2009/10/5 Matthew Wakeling matt...@flymine.org
Yes, that does work, but only because id is NOT NULL. I thought Postgres
8.4 had had a load of these join types unified to make it less important how
the query is written?
well, as a rule of thumb - unless you can't think of a default value of
Matthew Wakeling matt...@flymine.org writes:
Yes, that does work, but only because id is NOT NULL. I thought Postgres
8.4 had had a load of these join types unified to make it less important
how the query is written?
NOT IN is not easily optimizable because of its odd behavior in the
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:07 +0200, Jean-Michel Pouré wrote:
Go for Debian:
* It is a free community, very active.
Well, we need to state that this is not a unique feature.
* It is guaranteed to be upgradable.
Depends. I had lots of issues
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/3/09 7:35 PM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I am a particular fan of FreeBSD, and in some benchmarking I did between it
and CentOS FreeBSD 7.x literally wiped the floor with the CentOS release I
tried on IDENTICAL hardware.
I also like the 3ware raid
However, I have certainly seen some inefficiencies with Linux and large use
of shared memory -- and I wouldn't be surprised if these problems don't
exist on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
This came on the freebsd-performance-list a few days ago.
On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/3/09 7:35 PM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net
mailto:k...@denninger.net wrote:
I am a particular fan of FreeBSD, and in some benchmarking I did between it
and CentOS FreeBSD 7.x
Claus Guttesen wrote:
However, I have certainly seen some inefficiencies with Linux and large use
of shared memory -- and I wouldn't be surprised if these problems don't
exist on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
This came on the freebsd-performance-list a few days ago.
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 19:42 schrieb Karl Denninger:
I have not yet benchmarked FreeBSD 8.x - my production systems are
all on FreeBSD 7.x at present. The improvement going there from 6.x
was MASSIVE. 8.x is on my plate to start playing with in the next
couple of months.
Did you
Am 05.10.2009 um 19:42 schrieb Karl Denninger:
I have not yet benchmarked FreeBSD 8.x - my production systems are
all on FreeBSD 7.x at present. The improvement going there from 6.x
was MASSIVE. 8.x is on my plate to start playing with in the next
couple of months.
Did you ever try
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not
true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always going to
be a lose compared to a true coprocessor with dedicated
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Mark Mielke wrote:
I can show you tickets where RedHat has specifically state they *will
not* update the kernel to better support new hardware, for fear of
breaking support for older hardware.
There are two reasonable paths you'll find in the Open Source world, which
On 10/5/09 11:15 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not
true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
The people who hollered loudest about this seemed to often have
long-running read-only transactions in parallel with lots of short
read-write transactions.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Long-running read-only reports
are quite common in DBA
Hi Team,
This question may have asked many times previously also, but I could not
find a solution for this in any post. any help on the following will be
greatly appreciated.
We have a PG DB with PostGIS functions. There are around 100 tables in the
DB and almost all the tables contains 1
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
well, as a rule of thumb - unless you can't think of a default value of
column - don't use nulls. So using nulls as default 'idunno' - is a bad
practice, but everybody's opinion on that differ.
I don't understand this point of view. The concept of null was
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/5/09 11:15 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I'm running the 9650s in most of my busier machines. Haven't tried a
PERC card yet - its on my list. Most of my stuff is configured as RAID
1 although I have a couple of RAID 10 arrays in service; depending
Claus Guttesen kome...@gmail.com wrote:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=13001+0+current/freebsd-performance
Not being particularly passionate about any OS, I've been intrigued by
the FreeBSD benchmarks. However, management is reluctant to use boxes
which don't have
Am 05.10.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Karl Denninger:
gjournal, no. ZFS has potential stability issues - I am VERY
interested
in it when those are resolved. It looks good on a test platform but
I'm
unwilling to run it in production; there are both reports of crashes
and
I have been able to
Claus Guttesen kome...@gmail.com wrote:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=13001+0+current/freebsd-performance
Not being particularly passionate about any OS, I've been intrigued by
the FreeBSD benchmarks. However, management is reluctant to use boxes
which don't have
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Nikolas Everett nik9...@gmail.com wrote:
But you should plan on partitioning to multiple db servers up front
and save pain of conversion later on. A dual socket motherboard with
16 to 32 SAS drives and a fast RAID controller is WAY cheaper than a
similar
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Karl Denninger:
gjournal, no. ZFS has potential stability issues - I am VERY interested
in it when those are resolved. It looks good on a test platform but I'm
unwilling to run it in production; there are both reports of crashes and
I have
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@opengroupware.us wrote:
Maybe - if the only thing the server is running is PostgreSQL. Show of
hands - how many users who ONLY install PostgreSQL, and use a bare
minimum OS install, choosing to not run any other software? Now, how
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Viji V Nair v...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi Team,
This question may have asked many times previously also, but I could not
find a solution for this in any post. any help on the following will be
greatly appreciated.
We have a PG DB with PostGIS functions.
41 matches
Mail list logo
