Hi,
Decibel! wrote:
Actually, in this case, I suspect that latency will be far more critical
than overall bandwidth. I don't know if it's inherent to Gig-E, but my
limited experience has been that Gig-E has higher latency than 100mb.
I've been looking for some benchmarks, but it's rather hard
Thank you very much for your ideas. I've tried to change the protocol
from C to B and I got an increase in the number of TPS: 64.555763.
Now I would like to follow the advice of Mr. Bernd Helmle and change the
value of snd-bufsize.
The servers are cross connected with a common 100 Mbit/sec
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:47:40PM +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
The servers are cross connected with a common 100 Mbit/sec Ethernet so I
think they have a bandwidth around 80 Mbit/sec (even if I haven't yet
done any test on it). A rate of 70Mb seems reasonable to me.
Umm, seriously? Unless
Simon Riggs schrieb:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:37 +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
protocol C;
Try protocol B instead.
Sure? I've always heard that there has yet to be a case found, where B
is better than C. We use DRBD with protocol C, and are quite happy with it.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:06:40AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You would have to have lightning handed by God to your server to have a
total power failure without proper shutdown in the above scenario.
Do you live somewhere without thunderstorms?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 12:54:37AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You would have to have lightning handed by God to your server to have a
total power failure without proper shutdown in the above scenario.
Do you
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:57:24PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:47:40PM +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
The servers are cross connected with a common 100 Mbit/sec Ethernet so I
think they have a bandwidth around 80 Mbit/sec (even if I haven't yet
done any
Decibel! wrote:
dons EE hat
Pretty much every surge supressor out there is a POS... 99.9% of them
just wire a varistor across the line; like a $0.02 part is going to stop
a 10,00+ amp discharge.
The only use I have for those things is if they come with an equipment
guarantee, though I
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You would have to have lightning handed by God to your server to have a
total power failure without proper shutdown in the above scenario.
Do you live somewhere without thunderstorms? This is a regular event in
this part of the world during the
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
You would have to have lightning handed by God to your server to have a
total power failure without proper shutdown in the above scenario.
Do you live somewhere without thunderstorms? This is a regular event in
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 23:54 +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
--On Freitag, September 07, 2007 20:00:16 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:37 +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
protocol C;
Try protocol B instead.
But that would have an impact on
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, but the distinction is a small one. What are the chances
of losing two independent servers within a few milliseconds of each
other?
If they're on the same power bus?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, but the distinction is a small one. What are the chances
of losing two independent servers within a few milliseconds of each
other?
If they're on the same power bus?
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, but the distinction is a small one. What are the chances
of losing two independent servers within a few milliseconds of each
other?
If they're on the same power bus?
That chance is minuscule
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That chance is minuscule or at least should be. Of course we are
assuming some level of conditioned power that is independent of the
power bus, e.g; a UPS.
I find your faith in UPSes charmingly quaint.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, but the distinction is a small one. What are the chances
of losing two independent servers within a few milliseconds of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gregory Stark wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That chance is minuscule or at least should be. Of course we are
assuming some level of conditioned power that is independent of the
power bus, e.g; a UPS.
I find your faith in
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Gregory Stark wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're right, but the distinction is a small one. What are the chances
of losing two independent servers within a few milliseconds of each
other?
If they're
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It isn't my faith in a UPS. It is my real world knowledge.
Further I will exert what I already replied to Stefan:
city power-line conditioning generator-panel-plug-UPS-server
You would have to have lightning handed by God to your server to have a
--On Samstag, September 08, 2007 12:39:37 -0400 Tom Lane
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it seems like the point here is not so much can you recover
your data as what a commit means. Do you want a commit reported to the
client to mean the data is safely down to disk in both places, or only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
how is that making it different in practise ? - if both are on the same
UPS they are affectively on the same power bus ...
Well I was thinking the bus that is in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
how is that making it different in practise ? - if both are on the same
UPS they are affectively on the same power bus ...
Well I was
Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
Hello.
We have made some performance tests with DRBD and Postgresql 8.2.3. We
have two identical servers in a cluster (Dell 2950) with a partition of
100 GB managed by DRBD: once we checked Postgres keeping his data folder
in a local partition, the second time we
On 9/7/07, Maila Fatticcioni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously, working with the database in DRBD, we had two writes instead
of only one but we are a bit disappointed about the low results. We
would like to know if there is any way to improve the performance in
order to have a 3/4 rate
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:37 +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
protocol C;
Try protocol B instead.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
--On Freitag, September 07, 2007 20:00:16 +0100 Simon Riggs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 11:37 +0200, Maila Fatticcioni wrote:
protocol C;
Try protocol B instead.
But that would have an impact on transaction safety, wouldn't it? It will
return immediately after
26 matches
Mail list logo
