[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> There is a huge advantage to software raid on all kinds of
> levels. If you have the CPU then I suggest it. However you will
> never get the performance out of software raid on the high level
> (think 1 gig of cache) that you would on a software raid
Hi Oleg,
Thanks, I will read your documentation again, and try to understand what I
miss. And about pgmanual, it is very help me. I'll take attention on that.
Regards,
ahmad fajar
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Bartunov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 3:12 AM
T
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 06:53:57PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> Gonna investigate now if Linux software RAID5 is rugged enough. Can
> always buy the a card later if not.
Note that 2.6.13 and 2.6.14 have several improvements to the software RAID
code, some with regard to ruggedness. You might want t
Ahmad,
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ahmad Fajar wrote:
Hi Oleg,
what king of garbage ? Probably you index not needed token types, for
example, email address, file names
do you need proximity ? If no, use strip(tsvector) function to remove
coordinate information from tsvector.
I need proximit
Hi Oleg,
> what king of garbage ? Probably you index not needed token types, for
> example, email address, file names
> do you need proximity ? If no, use strip(tsvector) function to remove
> coordinate information from tsvector.
I need proximity. Some time I have to rank my article and mak
If I do a simple query like:
Select ids, keywords from dict where
keywords='blabla' ('blabla' is a single word);
The table have 200 million rows, I have index the
keywords field. On the first time my query seem to slow to get the result,
about 15-60 sec to get the result. But if I repeat
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Ahmad Fajar wrote:
Hi Oleg,
Sorry for my late. From the stat() function I got 1,5 million rows, although
I've added garbage words to the stop word file, there seem still have
garbage words. So I ask for my team to identify the garbage words and add to
what king of garbage
>> Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity calculations.
> I honestly can't speak to RAID 5. I don't (and won't) use it. RAID 5 is
> a little brutal when under
> heavy write load. I use either 1, or 10.
Yes, for RAID5 software RAID is better than HW RAID today - the modern gen
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 01:41:06PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
Also, Raid 5 is particularly inappropriate for write-heavy Database traffic.
Raid 5 actually hurts write latency dramatically and Databases are very
sensitive to latency.
Software raid 5 actually may have an advantage here. The main ca
Hi Oleg,
Sorry for my late. From the stat() function I got 1,5 million rows, although
I've added garbage words to the stop word file, there seem still have
garbage words. So I ask for my team to identify the garbage words and add to
stop words and I will update the articles after that. And about m
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 11:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since we know the predicted size of the sort set prior to starting the
> > sort node, could we not use that information to allocate memory
> > appropriately? i.e. if sort size is predicted to be more th
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 12:48 -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
> > I have some indications from private tests that very high memory settings
> >may actually hinder performance of the sorts, though I cannot explain that
> >and wonder whether it is the performance tests themselves that have issues.
> >
> H
PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which makes me think that I will use Software Raid 5 and convert the
> price of the card into RAM.
> This should be nice for a budget server.
> Gonna investigate now if Linux software RAID5 is rugged enough. Can
> always buy the a card later if n
There is a huge advantage to software raid on all kinds of levels. If
you have the CPU then I suggest
it. However you will never get the performance out of software raid on
the high level (think 1 gig of cache)
that you would on a software raid setup.
It is a bit of a tradeoff but for most
Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity calculations.
I honestly can't speak to RAID 5. I don't (and won't) use it. RAID 5 is
a little brutal when under
heavy write load. I use either 1, or 10.
An advantage of software raid, is that if the RAID card dies, you
have t
The common explanation is that CPUs are so fast now that it doesn't make
a difference.
From my experience software raid works very, very well. However I have
never put
software raid on anything that is very heavily loaded.
Even for RAID5 ? it uses a bit more CPU for the parity ca
Dave Cramer wrote:
I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering
postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would
software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ?
The common explanation is that CPUs are so fast now that it doesn't make
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 10:57:56AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering
postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would
software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ?
It's not. Modern cpu's can handle
On 9/25/05, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering
> postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would
> software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ?
>
I attempted to get some extra speed out o
I would think software raid would be quite inappropriate considering
postgres when it is working is taking a fair amount of CPU as would
software RAID. Does anyone know if this is really the case ?
Dave
On 25-Sep-05, at 6:17 AM, Michael Ben-Nes wrote:
I would consider Software Raid
PFC wr
I would consider Software Raid
PFC wrote:
Hello fellow Postgresql'ers.
I've been stumbled on this RAID card which looks nice. It is a
PCI-X SATA Raid card with 6 channels, and does RAID 0,1,5,10,50.
It is a HP card with an Adaptec chip on it, and 64 MB cache.
HP Part # :
21 matches
Mail list logo
