[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ file /usr/lib/postgresql/8.1/bin/postgres
/usr/lib/postgresql/8.1/bin/postgres: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, AMD x86-64,
version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.0, dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
stripped
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:56:32 +0100
11 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 2006-03-17, at 15:50, Evgeny Gridasov wrote:
template1=# select version();
version
--
---
PostgreSQL 8.1.3 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC)
3.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 08:56:58AM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
> 64 bit binaries usually run marginally slower than 32 bit binaries.
This depends a bit on the application, and what you mean by "64 bit" (ie.
what architecture). Some specialized applications actually benefit from
having a 64-bit nati
On Mar 17, 2006, at 4:24 AM, Evgeny Gridasov wrote:
Yesterday we recieved a new server 2xAMD64(2core x 2chips = 4 cores)
8GB RAM and RAID-1 (LSI megaraid)
I've maid some tests with pgbench (scaling 1000, database size ~ 16Gb)
First of all, I'd like to mention that it was strange to see that
th
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 6:24 am, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Evgeny Gridasov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've maid some tests with pgbench
If possible, tune the background writer with your actual application
code under normal load. Optimal tuning is going to vary based on usage
pat
I got this :
template1=# select version();
version
--
PostgreSQL 8.1.2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,
template1=# select version();
version
-
PostgreSQL 8.1.3 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC cc (GCC) 3.3.5
(Debia
First of all, I'd like to mention that it was strange to see that
the server performance degraded by 1-2% when we changed kernel/userland
to x86_64
from default installed i386 userland/amd64 kernel. The operating system
was Debian Linux,
filesystem ext3.
Did you use postgres compiled for
Yesterday we recieved a new server 2xAMD64(2core x 2chips = 4 cores)
8GB RAM and RAID-1 (LSI megaraid)
I've maid some tests with pgbench (scaling 1000, database size ~ 16Gb)
First of all, I'd like to mention that it was strange to see that
the server performance degraded by 1-2% when we changed ke
>>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 12:15 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Evgeny Gridasov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> please, could you post other settings from your postgresql.conf?
Everything in postgresql.conf which is not commented out:
listen_addresses = '*' # what IP interface(s)
Kevin,
please, could you post other settings from your postgresql.conf?
interested in:
bgwriter_delay
shared_buffers
checkpoint_segments
checkpoint_timeout
wal_buffers
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:43:45 -0600
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We were seeing clusters of query timeouts wi
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 1:54 pm, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joshua D. Drake"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I then did some calculations, based on the sustained write speed of
our
>> drive array (as measured by copying big files to it), and we tried
>> this:
>>
>> bgwriter_lru_percent =
> I then did some calculations, based on the sustained write speed of our
> drive array (as measured by copying big files to it), and we tried
> this:
>
> bgwriter_lru_percent = 20.0
> bgwriter_lru_maxpages = 200
> bgwriter_all_percent = 10.0
> bgwriter_all_maxpages = 600
>
> This almost totally e
We were seeing clusters of query timeouts with our web site, which were
corrected by adjusting the configuration of the background writer. I'm
posting just to provide information which others might find useful -- I
don't have any problem I'm trying to solve in this regard.
The web site gets 1 to
14 matches
Mail list logo
