Hi,
I changed fsync to false. It took 8 minutes to restore the
full database.
That is 26 times faster than before. :-/ (aprox. 200 tps)
With background writer it took 12 minutes. :-(
That seems reasonable.
The funny thing is, I had a VMWARE emulation on the same
Windows mashine,
You can *never* get above 80 without using write cache,
regardless of
your OS, if you have a single disk.
Why? Even with, say, a 15K RPM disk? Or the ability to
fsync() multiple concurrently-committing transactions at once?
Uh. What I meant was a single *IDE* disk. Sorry. Been too
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on these results.
Not without a lot more detail on how you *got* the results.
What exactly did you do to force the various plan choices?
(I see some ridiculous choices of indexscans, for instance,
suggesting improper use of enable_seqscan in some
This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
Linux to
scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP scaled. It
reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low traffic servers.
That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further
investigation so far
isn't it?
Hi,
We are experiencing slow performance on 8 Beta 2 Dev3 on Win32 and are
trying to determine why. Any info is appreciated.
We have a Web Server and a DB server both running Win2KServer with all
service packs and critical updates.
An ASP page on the Web Server hits the DB Server with a simple
How do vendors actually implement auto-clustering? I assume
they move
rows around during quiet periods or have lots of empty space in each
value bucket.
As far as I know, Oracle does it by having a B-Tree organized heap (a
feature introduced around v8 IIRC), basically making the primary key
Actually, even Microsoft SQL Server will do this for you (you can even
chose if it shoudl split it up on all processors or a maximum number).
Will do it on any types of queries, as long as they're big enough (you
can tweak the cost limit, but the general idea is only process
CPU-expensive queries
Adam Witney wrote:
[snip]
If you would go with that one, make sure to get the optional BBWC
(Battery Backed Write Cache). Without it the controller
won't enable
the write-back cache (which it really shouldn't, since it
wouldn't be
safe without the batteries). WB cache can really
Adam Witney wrote:
Actually I am going through the same questions myself at the
moment I
would like to have a 2 disk RAID1 and a 4 disk RAID5, so
need at least 6
disks
Anybody have any suggestions or experience with other
hardware manufacturers
for this size of setup? (2U rack,
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
