On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:00 AM, Marc Cousin wrote:
So, you'll probably end up being slowed down by WAL fsyncs ... and
you won't
have a lot of solutions. Maybe you should start with trying to set
fsync=no
as a test to confirm that (you should have a lot of iowaits right
now if you
haven't dis
On Apr 13, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
This particular server is pretty much what I inherited for now for
this project.and its Raid 5. There is a new server I am setting up
soon... 8 disks which we are planning to setup
6 disks in RAID 10
2 Hot spares
In RAID 10 would it matte
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 20:07, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> It's the refusal of people to stop using MyISAM table types that's the
> >> real issue.
> >
> > Isn't MyISAM still the default over there? It's hardly likely that the
> > average MySQL u
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's the refusal of people to stop using MyISAM table types that's the
real issue.
Isn't MyISAM still the default over there? It's hardly likely that the
average MySQL user would use anything but the default table type .
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It's the refusal of people to stop using MyISAM table types that's the
real issue.
Isn't MyISAM still the default over there? It's hardly likely that the
average MySQL user would use anything but the default table type ...
Since MySQL 5, InnoDB table
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's the refusal of people to stop using MyISAM table types that's the
> > real issue.
>
> Isn't MyISAM still the default over there? It's hardly likely that the
> average MySQL user would use anything bu
Isn't MyISAM still the default over there?
Yes, it's the default.
Personnally I compile MySQL without InnoDB... and for any new development
I use postgres.
It's hardly likely that the average MySQL user would use anything but
the default table type ...
Double yes ; also many
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's the refusal of people to stop using MyISAM table types that's the
> real issue.
Isn't MyISAM still the default over there? It's hardly likely that the
average MySQL user would use anything but the default table type ...
reg
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 07:08, Markus Schaber wrote:
> Hi, Magnus,
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have to support
> > mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help.
>
> Ouch, that hurts.
>
> To support mysql, they break performance for _every other
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Actually, [commit_delay] might well hurt by introducing extra delays.
>>
>> Well, if you read the documentation, you will see that it
>> will only wait if there are at least commit_siblings other
>> transactions active. So when Bacula serializes
Hi, Magnus,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>To support mysql, they break performance for _every other_
>>database system?
> Actually, it probably helps on SQLite as well.
AFAICS from the FAQ http://www.sqlite.org/faq.html#q7 and #q8, SQLite
does serialize itsself.
> And considering they only
> suppor
> > Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have
> to support
> > mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help.
>
> Ouch, that hurts.
>
> To support mysql, they break performance for _every other_
> database system?
Actually, it probably helps on SQLite as well. And considering they o
Hi, Magnus,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have to support
> mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help.
Ouch, that hurts.
To support mysql, they break performance for _every other_ database system?
Now, I understand how the mysql people manage to s
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:56:44PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Bacula already serializes access to the database (they have to support
> mysql/myisam), so this shouldn't help. Actually, it might well hurt by
> introducing extra delays.
You have any contact with the developers? Maybe they're a p
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:15:33PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 15:09, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> > Michael Stone writes:
> >
> > > I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are you
> > > actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with that becaus
> > For now, I only could get good performance with bacula and
> postgresql
> > when disabling fsync...
>
>
> Isn't that less safe?
Most definitly.
FWIW, I'm getting pretty good speeds with Bacula and PostgreSQL on a
reasonably small db (file table about 40 million rows, filename about
5.2 mi
Hi, Francisco,
Francisco Reyes wrote:
> I only wonder what is safer.. using a second or two in commit_delay or
> using fsync = off.. Anyone cares to comment?
It might be that you misunderstood commit_delay. It will not only delay
the disk write, but also block your connnection until the write ac
Tom Lane writes:
Also, increasing checkpoint_segments and possibly wal_buffers helps a
lot for write-intensive loads.
Following up on those two recomendations from Tom.
Tom mentioned in a different message that if the inserst are small that
increasing wal_buffers would not help.
How about c
Gábriel Ákos writes:
you are right. raid5 is definitely not suitable for database activities.
That is not entirely true. :-)
Right now the new server is not ready and the ONLY place I could put the DB
for Bacula was a machine with RAID 5. So far it is holding fine. HOWEVER...
only one bacula
Gábriel Ákos writes:
RAID 10 needs pairs.. so we can either have no spares or 2 spares.
hm, interesting. I have recently set up a HP machine with smartarray 6i
controller, and it is able to handle 4 disks in raid10 plus 1 as spare.
:-)
Ok so let me be a bit more clear...
We have 6 disks in
Francisco Reyes wrote:
Michael Stone writes:
I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are
you actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with that because
you need a factor of two disks for your mirrors?
RAID 10 needs pairs.. so we can either have no spares or 2
Francisco Reyes wrote:
That is certainly something worth considering... Still I wonder if 2
more spindles will help enough to justify going to RAID 5. My
understanding is that RAID10 has simpler computations requirements which
is partly what makes it better for lots of random read/write.
yo
Scott Marlowe writes:
Spares are placed in service one at a time.
Ah.. that's your point. I know that. :-)
You don't need 2 spares for
RAID 10, trust me.
We bought the machine with 8 drives. At one point we were considering RAID
5, then we decided to give RAID 10 a try. We have a simmila
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 15:09, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> Michael Stone writes:
>
> > I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are you
> > actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with that because you
> > need a factor of two disks for your mirrors?
>
> RAID 10 need
Michael Stone writes:
I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are you
actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with that because you
need a factor of two disks for your mirrors?
RAID 10 needs pairs.. so we can either have no spares or 2 spares.
Mmm, it's a bi
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 02:01:56PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Michael Stone writes:
I guess the first question is why 2 hot spares?
Because we are using RAID 10
I still don't follow that. Why would the RAID level matter? IOW, are you
actually wanting 2 spares, or are you just stick with
Michael Stone writes:
I guess the first question is why 2 hot spares?
Because we are using RAID 10
larger array with more spindles with outperform a smaller one with
fewer, regardless of RAID level (assuming a decent battery-backed
cache).
Based on what I have read RAID 10 is supposed to
Tom Lane writes:
That will help not at all, if the problem is too-short transactions
as it sounds to be.
How about commit_delay?
You really need to pester the authors of bacula
to try to wrap multiple inserts per transaction.
Like any volunteer project I am sure it's more an issue of res
Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think I am going to try increasing wal_buffers
That will help not at all, if the problem is too-short transactions
as it sounds to be. You really need to pester the authors of bacula
to try to wrap multiple inserts per transaction. Or maybe find so
Marc Cousin writes:
If I remember correctly (I allready discussed this with Kern Sibbald a while
ago), bacula does each insert in its own transaction : that's how the program
is done
Thanks for the info.
For now, I only could get good performance with bacula and postgresql when
disabling fs
I hope I'm not going to say stupid things, but here's what i know (or i think
i know :) ) about bacula + postgresql
If I remember correctly (I allready discussed this with Kern Sibbald a while
ago), bacula does each insert in its own transaction : that's how the program
is done, and of course i
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set?
Would it be better:
4 disks in RAID10 Data
2 disks RAID 1 WALL
2 hot spares
I guess the first question is why 2 hot spares? You don't have many
spindles, so you don't
Jim C. Nasby writes:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set?
Would it be better:
4 disks in RAID10 Data
2 disks RAID 1 WALL
2 hot spares
Well, benchmark it with your app and find out, but generally speaking
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> In RAID 10 would it matter that WALL is in the same RAID set?
> Would it be better:
> 4 disks in RAID10 Data
> 2 disks RAID 1 WALL
> 2 hot spares
Well, benchmark it with your app and find out, but generally speaking
unless your dat
Tom Lane writes:
Or at least try to do multiple inserts per transaction.
Will see if the program has an option like that.
Also, increasing checkpoint_segments and possibly wal_buffers helps a
Will try those.
Try to get the WAL onto a separate disk
spindle if you can. (These things don'
Chris writes:
If you can, use copy instead:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-copy.html
I am familiar with copy.
Can't use it in this scenario.
The data is coming from a program called Bacula (Backup server).
It is not static data.
---(end of broadcas
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Francisco Reyes wrote:
>> Doing my first write heavy database.
>> What settings will help improve inserts?
>> Only a handfull of connections, but each doing up to 30 inserts/second.
> If you can, use copy instead:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive
Francisco Reyes wrote:
Doing my first write heavy database.
What settings will help improve inserts?
Only a handfull of connections, but each doing up to 30 inserts/second.
Plan to have 2 to 3 clients which most of the time will not run at the
same time, but ocasionaly it's possible two of them
Doing my first write heavy database.
What settings will help improve inserts?
Only a handfull of connections, but each doing up to 30 inserts/second.
Plan to have 2 to 3 clients which most of the time will not run at the
same time, but ocasionaly it's possible two of them may bump into each
othe
39 matches
Mail list logo
