I have unlimited rack space, so 2U is not the issue. The boxes are stored in
our lab for internal software tools. I'm going to research those boxes you
mention. Regarding the JBOD enclosures, are these generally just 2U or 4U
units with SCSI interface connectors? I didn't see these types of
Luke,I check dmesg one more time and I found this regarding the cciss driver:Filesystem cciss/c1d0p1: Disabling barriers, not supported by the underlying device.Don't know if it means anything, but thought I'd mention it.
SteveOn 8/8/06, Steve Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke,I thought so. In my
Steve,
At the end of the day it seems that you've got a support issue with the
SmartArray RAID adapter from HP.
Last I tried that I found that they don't write the cciss driver, don't
test it for performance on Linux and don't make any claims about it's
performance on Linux.
That said - can
Luke,I will do that. If it is the general impression that this server should perform well with Postgresql, Are the RAID cards, the 6i and 642 sufficient to your knowledge? I am wondering if it is the disc array itself.
SteveOn 8/8/06, Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve,At the end of the
Steve,
I will do that. If it is the general impression that this
server should perform well with Postgresql, Are the RAID
cards, the 6i and 642 sufficient to your knowledge? I am
wondering if it is the disc array itself.
I think that is the question to be answered by HP support. Ask
Luke,I hope so. I'll keep you and the list up-to-date as I learn more.SteveOn 8/8/06, Luke Lonergan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Steve, I will do that. If it is the general impression that this
server should perform well with Postgresql, Are the RAID cards, the 6i and 642 sufficient to your
We were in a similar situation with a similar budget. But we had two
requirements, no deprecated scsi while the successor SAS is available
and preferrably only 3 or 4U of rack space. And it had to have
reasonable amounts of disks (at least 12).
The two options we finally choose between where
-- Forwarded message --From: Gourish Singbal [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Aug 9, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: unsubscribeTo: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
-- Best,
Gourish Singbal -- Best,Gourish Singbal
Unsubscribe
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/413 - Release Date: 2006/08/08
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
* David Lang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
there's a huge difference between 'works on debian' and 'supported on
debian'. I do use debian extensivly, (along with slackware on my personal
machines), so i am comfortable getting things to work. but 'supported'
means that when you run into a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If subquerys are not working I think you should try to create a view
with the subquery.
Maybe it will work.
Patrice Beliveau wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Patrice Beliveau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE TABLE.COLUMN1=something
Have you ever actually had that happen? I havn't and I've called
support for a number of different issues for various commercial
software. In the end it might boil down to some distribution-specific
issue that they're not willing to fix but honestly that's pretty rare.
Very rare, if you are
On 8/7/06, Alvaro Nunes Melo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we recently upgraded our dual Xeon Dell to a brand new Sun v40z with 4
opterons, 16GB of memory and MegaRAID with enough disks. OS is Debian
Sarge amd64, PostgreSQL is 8.0.3. on
Hello everyone.
My (simplified) database structure is:
a) table product (15 rows)
product_id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY
title TEXT
...
b) table action (5000 rows)
action_id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY
product_id BIGINT, FK to product
shop_group_id INTEGER (there are about 5 groups, distributed about
Patrice Beliveau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
PG 8.1 will not reorder WHERE clauses for a single table unless it has
some specific reason to do so (and AFAICT no version back to 7.0 or so
has done so either...) So there's something you are not telling us that
is relevant.
here
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 17:53, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
* David Lang ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
there's a huge difference between 'works on debian' and 'supported on
debian'. I do use debian extensivly, (along with slackware on my personal
machines), so i am comfortable getting things to work. but
Hello,
Ive recently been tasked with scalability/performance
testing of a Dell PowerEdge 2950. This is the one with the new Intel Woodcrest
Xeons. Since I havent seen any info on this box posted to the list, I
figured people might be interested in the results, and maybe in return share
On 8/9/06, Kenji Morishige [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have unlimited rack space, so 2U is not the issue. The boxes are stored in
our lab for internal software tools. I'm going to research those boxes you
mention. Regarding the JBOD enclosures, are these generally just 2U or 4U
units with SCSI
Ahh and which companies would these be? As a representative of the
most prominent one in the US I can tell you that you are not speaking
from a knowledgeable position.
note I said many, not all. I am aware that your company does not fall
into this catagory.
I know, but I am curious as to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ahh and which companies would these be? As a representative of the most
prominent one in the US I can tell you that you are not speaking from a
knowledgeable position.
note I said many, not all. I am aware that your company does not fall into
this
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 11:37, David Lang wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Ahh and which companies would these be? As a representative of the most
prominent one in the US I can tell you that you are not speaking from a
knowledgeable position.
note I said many, not
On Aug 9, 2006, at 5:47 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Alex Turner wrote:
First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is
a sure
fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame
me all
you want, it doesn't make it less true).
*cough* BS *cough*
Linux is
and please note, when I'm talking about support, it's not just postgresql
support, but also hardware/driver support that can run into these problems
I've run into this as well. Generally speaking, the larger the company,
the more likely you are to get the we don't support that line.
/me
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:45:07PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
Luke,
I thought so. In my test, I tried to be fair/equal since my Sun box has two
4-disc arrays each on their own channel. So, I just used one of them which
should be a little slower than the 6-disc with 192MB cache.
Incidently,
Jim,I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to enable writeback. It may have been mislabled cache accelerator where you can give a percentage to read/write. That aspect did not change the performance like the LSI MegaRAID adapter does.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:20:01AM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
I'm not aware of any actual evidence having emerged that it is of any
value to set shared buffers higher than 1.
http://flightaware.com
They saw a large increase in how many concurrent connections they could
handle when
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:11, Steve Poe wrote:
Jim,
I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS
configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to enable writeback. It may have
been mislabled cache accelerator where you can give a percentage to
read/write. That aspect did not
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on
your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend money on a separate RAID
controller for xlog with its own cache
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:50:30PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:35, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:15:27AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Actually, the BIGGEST win comes when you've got battery backed cache on
your RAID controller. In fact, I'd spend
This isn't a bug; moving to pgsql-performance.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 08:42:02AM +, kumarselvan wrote:
i have installed the postgres as mentioned in the Install file. it is a 4
cpu 8 GB Ram Machine installed with Linux Enterprise version 3. when i am
running a load which will perfrom 40
Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every single piece of advice I've seen on shared_buffers comes from the
7.x era, when our buffer management was extremely simplistic. IMO all of
that knowledge was made obsolete when 8.0 came out, and our handling of
shared_buffers has improved ever
Scott,Do you know how to activate the writeback on the RAID controller from HP?SteveOn 8/9/06, Scott Marlowe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:11, Steve Poe wrote:
Jim, I'll give it a try. However, I did not see anywhere in the BIOS configuration of the 642 RAID adapter to enable
Jim,
I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
Steve
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 16:05 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:45:07PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
Luke,
I thought so. In my test, I tried to be fair/equal since my
I'm trying to optimize a resume search engine that is using Tsearch2
indexes. It's running on a dual-opteron 165 system with 4GB of ram
and a raid1 3Gb/sec SATA array. Each text entry is about 2-3K of
text, and there are about 23,000 rows in the search table, with a goal
of reaching about
35 matches
Mail list logo
