On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to return the controller, because it does not
scale very well with more that 4 disks in raid 10. Bandwidth is
limited to 350MB/sec, and IOPS scale badly with extra disks...
H
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
Anyway, I'm going to return the controller, because it
does not scale very well with more that 4 disks in raid 10. Bandwidth is
limited to 350MB/sec, and IOPS scale badly with extra disks...
How did you determine that upper limit? Usually it t
Scott Carey wrote:
For reads, if your shared_buffers is large enough, your heavily used
indexes won't likely go to disk much at all.
ISTM this would happen regardless of your shared_buffers setting.
If you have enough memory the OS should cache the frequently used
pages regardless of shared_buf
Hi Scott,
Great info! Our RAID card is at the moment a ICP vortex (Adaptec)
ICP5165BR, and I'll be using it with Ubuntu server 8.04. I tried
OpenSolaris, but it yielded even more terrible performance, specially
using ZFS.. I guess that was just a missmatch. Anyway, I'm going to
return the co
Indexes will be random write workload, but these won't by synchronous writes
and will be buffered by the raid controller's cache. Assuming you're using
a hardware raid controller that is, and one that doesn't have major
performance problems on your platform. Which brings those questions up ---
wh
Thanks Joshua,
So what about putting the indexes on a separate array? Since we do a lot
of inserts indexes are going to be worked on a lot of the time.
Regards,
Christiaan
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
So, what you are basically saying, is that a single mirror is in
ge
Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
So, what you are basically saying, is that a single mirror is in general
more than enough to facilitate the transaction log.
http://www.commandprompt.com/blogs/joshua_drake/2008/04/is_that_performance_i_smell_ext2_vs_ext3_on_50_spindles_testing_for_postgresql/
http:/
So, what you are basically saying, is that a single mirror is in
general more than enough to facilitate the transaction log.
So it would not be smart to put the indexes onto a separate disk
spindle to improve index performance?
On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:49 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Wed, Au
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Christiaan Willemsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently trying to find out what the best configuration is for our new
> database server. It will server a database of about 80 GB and growing fast.
> The new machine has plenty of memory (64GB) and 16 SAS disks
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Christiaan Willemsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently trying to find out what the best configuration is for our new
> database server. It will server a database of about 80 GB and growing fast.
> The new machine has plenty of memory (64GB) and 16 SAS disks
I'm currently trying to find out what the best configuration is for
our new database server. It will server a database of about 80 GB and
growing fast. The new machine has plenty of memory (64GB) and 16 SAS
disks, of wich two are already in use as a mirror for the OS.
The rest can be used f
11 matches
Mail list logo
