On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
those numbers are stupendous for 8 drive sata. how much shared
buffers do you have?
Couple of things to notice:
1) The benchmark can run fully in memory, although not 100% in shared_buffers.
2) These are 100k transaction
On 08/03/12, Ants Aasma (ants.aa...@eesti.ee) wrote:
So regardless if the benchmark is a good representation of the target
workload or not, it definitely isn't benchmarking the IO system.
At the risk of hijacking the thread I started, I'd be grateful for
comments on the following system IO
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
those numbers are stupendous for 8 drive sata. how much shared
buffers do you have?
Couple of things to notice:
1) The benchmark can run fully in
Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:24:25 PM you wrote:
On 03/07/2012 03:07 PM, Craig James wrote:
echo 4294967296 /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax # 4 GB shared memory
echo 4096 /proc/sys/kernel/shmmni
echo 1572864 /proc/sys/kernel/shmall # 6 GB max shared mem (block size
is 4096 bytes)
For what it's
On 03/08/2012 10:15 AM, Jochen Erwied wrote:
Shouldn't that be:
kernel.shmmax = 4294967296
kernel.shmmni = 4096
kernel.shmall = 1572864
Oops! Yes. That's definitely it. I'm too accustomed to having those set
automatically, and then setting these:
vm.swappiness = 0
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Craig James cja...@emolecules.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
We do have complex transactions, but I haven't benchmarked the
performance so I can't describe it. Few of the databases are at the many
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Craig James cja...@emolecules.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
We do have complex transactions, but I haven't benchmarked the
performance so I can't describe it. Few of the databases are at the many
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Craig James cja...@emolecules.com
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
We do have complex transactions, but I haven't
On 03/07/2012 03:07 PM, Craig James wrote:
echo 4294967296 /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax # 4 GB shared memory
echo 4096 /proc/sys/kernel/shmmni
echo 1572864 /proc/sys/kernel/shmall # 6 GB max shared mem (block size
is 4096 bytes)
For what it's worth, you can just make these entries in your
On 04/03/12, Rory Campbell-Lange (r...@campbell-lange.net) wrote:
I'd be grateful for advice on specifying a new server
...
The existing server is a 2 x Quad core E5420 Xeon (2.5GHz) with 8GB of
RAM with an LSI battery-backed RAID 10 array of 4no 10K SCSI disks,
providing about 230GB of
On 03/04/2012 03:50 AM, Michael Friedl wrote:
Hey!
On 04.03.2012 10:58, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
1U chassis with 8 2.5 disk bays
2x Intel Xeon E5630 Quad-Core / 4x 2.53GHz / 12MB cache
8 channel Areca ARC-1880i (PCI Express x8 card)
presumably with BBU (can't see it
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
...
[Description of system with 2 * 4 core Xeons, 8GB RAM, LSI card with
4*15K SCSI drives
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
We do have complex transactions, but I haven't benchmarked the
performance so I can't describe it. Few of the databases are at the many
million row size at the moment, and we are moving to an agressive scheme
On 05/03/12, Craig James (cja...@emolecules.com) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
We do have complex transactions, but I haven't benchmarked the
performance so I can't describe it. Few of the databases are at the many
million row
Hey!
On 04.03.2012 10:58, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
1U chassis with 8 2.5 disk bays
2x Intel Xeon E5630 Quad-Core / 4x 2.53GHz / 12MB cache
8 channel Areca ARC-1880i (PCI Express x8 card)
presumably with BBU (can't see it listed at present)
2 x 300GB SAS 2.5 disks for
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
I'd be grateful for advice on specifying the new server
We presently have one main database server which is performing well. As
our services expand we are thinking of bringing another database server
to work
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
[About existing server...] We would get faster performance, I
believe, by providing more RAM. Sorry -- I should have some pg_bench
output to share
On 03/04/2012 03:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
I'd be grateful for advice on specifying the new server
providing about 230GB of usable storage, 150GB of which is on an LV
providing reconfigurable space for the databases which are served off an
XFS formatted volume.
Do you mean LVM? I've
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
The 15k RPM disks aren't that big of a deal unless you're pushing the
bleeding edge on a transactional system. I'm gonna take a wild guess
that
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Andy Colson a...@squeakycode.net wrote:
On 03/04/2012 03:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
I'd be grateful for advice on specifying the new server
providing about 230GB of usable storage, 150GB of which is on an LV
providing reconfigurable space for the
20 matches
Mail list logo
