On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/5/07, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/5/07, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-09-05 Scott Marlowe wrote:
And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one
Hi guys,
I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a new database
server. It's going to replace an older one, driving a social networking
web application. The current server (a quad opteron with 4Gb of RAM and
80Gb fast SCSI RAID10) is coping with an average load of ranging between
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a new database
server. It's going to replace an older one, driving a social networking
web application. The current server (a quad opteron with 4Gb of RAM and
80Gb fast SCSI RAID10) is coping with an
Richard Huxton wrote:
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a new database
server. It's going to replace an older one, driving a social networking
web application. The current server (a quad opteron with 4Gb of RAM and
80Gb fast SCSI RAID10)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a new database
server. It's going to replace an older one, driving a social
networking web
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a new database
server. It's going to replace an older one,
Hi,
We are currently running our DB on a DualCore, Dual Proc 3.Ghz Xeon, 8GB
RAM, 4x SAS 146 GB 15K RPM on RAID 5.
The current data size is about 50GB, but we want to purchase the hardware to
scale to about 1TB as we think our business will need to support that much
soon.
- Currently we have a
On Wed, Sep 5, 2007 at 5:41 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thomas Finneid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how does pg utilise multi cpus/cores, i.e. does it use more than one
core? and possibly, how, are there any documentation about this.
For portability reasons PostgreSQL doesn't use
* Willo van der Merwe:
Good advice. After running a vmstat and iostat, it is clear, to my
mind anyway, that the most likely bottleneck is IO, next is probably
some more RAM.
Here's the output:
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system--
cpu
r b swpd
* Willo van der Merwe:
Florian Weimer wrote:
You need to run vmstat 10 (for ten-second averages) and report a
couple of lines.
2 80 1
5 0 61732 37052 28180 34319560014 987 2320 2021 38
sda3 3.30 0.0026.40 0264
sda8
--- Jayaram Bhat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am using a postgres setup in Windows. And it is working fine usings ODBC
drive, but not in ADO PostgreSQL OLE DB Provider
giving error test connection 'Test connection failed because of an error in
initializing provider. Unspecified error'
On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We are currently running our DB on a DualCore, Dual Proc 3.Ghz Xeon, 8GB
RAM, 4x SAS 146 GB 15K RPM on RAID 5.
The current data size is about 50GB, but we want to purchase the hardware to
scale to about 1TB as we think our business will
Thanks Mark.
If I replicate a snapshot of Data and log files (basically the entire PG
data directory) and I maintain same version of postgres on both servers, it
should work right?
I am also thinking that having SAN storage will provide me with facility of
keeping a warm standby DB. By just
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:05 +0530, Harsh Azad wrote:
Hi,
We are currently running our DB on a DualCore, Dual Proc 3.Ghz Xeon,
8GB RAM, 4x SAS 146 GB 15K RPM on RAID 5.
The current data size is about 50GB, but we want to purchase the
hardware to scale to about 1TB as we think our business
Thanks Scott, we have now requested IBM/EMC to provide test machines.
Interestingly since you mentioned the importance of Raid controllers and the
drivers; we are planning to use Cent OS 5 for hosting the DB.
Firstly, I could only find postgres 8.1.x RPM for CentOS 5, could not find
any RPM for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Harsh Azad wrote:
Thanks Scott, we have now requested IBM/EMC to provide test machines.
Interestingly since you mentioned the importance of Raid controllers and the
drivers; we are planning to use Cent OS 5 for hosting the DB.
Firstly, I could
On 6-9-2007 14:35 Harsh Azad wrote:
2x Quad Xeon 2.4 Ghz (4-way only 2 populated right now)
I don't understand this sentence. You seem to imply you might be able to
fit more processors in your system?
Currently the only Quad Core's you can buy are dual-processor
processors, unless you
On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Scott, we have now requested IBM/EMC to provide test machines.
Interestingly since you mentioned the importance of Raid controllers and the
drivers; we are planning to use Cent OS 5 for hosting the DB.
What RAID controllers have you looked
Hi,
How about the Dell Perc 5/i card, 512MB battery backed cache or IBM
ServeRAID-8k Adapter?
I hope I am sending relevant information here, I am not too well versed with
RAID controllers.
Regards,
Harsh
On 9/6/07, Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Richard Huxton wrote:
Willo van der Merwe wrote:
Hi guys,
I'm have the rare opportunity to spec the hardware for a
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 22:28 +0530, Harsh Azad wrote:
Thanks Mark.
If I replicate a snapshot of Data and log files (basically the entire
PG data directory) and I maintain same version of postgres on both
servers, it should work right?
I am also thinking that having SAN storage will provide
On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
How about the Dell Perc 5/i card, 512MB battery backed cache or IBM
ServeRAID-8k Adapter?
All Dell Percs have so far been based on either adaptec or LSI
controllers, and have ranged from really bad to fairly decent
performers. There were
Florian Weimer wrote:
You need to run vmstat 10 (for ten-second averages) and report a
couple of lines.
procs ---memory-- ---swap-- -io --system--
cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si sobibo incs us sy
id wa
1 0 61732 47388 27908
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
How about the Dell Perc 5/i card, 512MB battery backed cache or IBM
ServeRAID-8k Adapter?
All Dell Percs have so far been based on either adaptec or LSI
controllers, and have ranged from really bad to fairly
I am not sure I agree with that evaluation.
I only have 2 dell database servers and they have been 100% reliable.
Maybe he is referring to support which does tend be up to who you get.
When I asked about performance on my new server they were very helpful but I
did have a bad time on my NAS device
On 6-9-2007 20:42 Scott Marlowe wrote:
On 9/6/07, Harsh Azad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
How about the Dell Perc 5/i card, 512MB battery backed cache or IBM
ServeRAID-8k Adapter?
All Dell Percs have so far been based on either adaptec or LSI
controllers, and have ranged from really bad to
On 6-9-2007 20:29 Mark Lewis wrote:
Maybe I'm jaded by past experiences, but the only real use case I can
see to justify a SAN for a database would be something like Oracle RAC,
but I'm not aware of any PG equivalent to that.
PG Cluster II seems to be able to do that, but I don't know whether
Hi,
I've a question about amount of indices.
I explain my issue based on an example:
Table which contains person information, one row per person.
There will be lots of SELECTS doing search by special criteria,
e.g.: Age, Gender.
Now there will be 4 User groups which will
Scott Marlowe wrote:
And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process
opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means
that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable failures
of your database.
Can you provide some justification for this?
Scott Marlowe wrote:
Where unixes generally outperform windows is in starting up new
backends, better file systems, and handling very large shared_buffer
settings.
Why do you think that UNIX systems are better at handling large shared
buffers than Wndows?
32 bit Windows systems can suffer
On 9/6/07, James Mansion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process
opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means
that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable failures
of your
Patric wrote:
My Question now is: Is it wise to do so, and create hundreds or maybe
thousands of Indices
which partition the table for the selections.
No, this is not helpful -- basically what you are doing is taking the
first level (the first couple of levels maybe) of the index out
Wow - it's nice to hear someone say that... out loud.
Thanks, you gave me hope!
-Original Message-
From: James Mansion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 6, 2007 4:55 PM
To: Carlo Stonebanks
Cc: Scott Marlowe; Alvaro Herrera; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re:
Carlo Stonebanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is an index on lower(last_name). I have seen the planner convert the
LIKE to lower(last_name) = 'smith' and lower(last_name) 'smiti' on 8.2.4
systems, but a slow sequence scan and filter on 8.1.9 - is this related to
the version difference
On 9/6/07, Joel Fradkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure I agree with that evaluation.
I only have 2 dell database servers and they have been 100% reliable.
Maybe he is referring to support which does tend be up to who you get.
When I asked about performance on my new server they were
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patric wrote:
My Question now is: Is it wise to do so, and create hundreds or maybe
thousands of Indices
which partition the table for the selections.
No, this is not helpful -- basically what you are doing is taking the
first level (the first
If what you mean is that pg has a design that's heavily oriented towards
things that tend to
be cheap on POSIX and doesn't use the core Win32 features effectively,
then let's track
that as an optimisation opportunity for the Win32 port.
Isn't it just easier to assume that Windows Server can't
Carlo Stonebanks wrote:
Isn't it just easier to assume that Windows Server can't do anything right?
;-)
Well, avoiding the ;-) - people do, and its remarkably foolish of them. Its
a long-standing whinge that many people with a UNIX-background seem to
just assume that Windows sucks, but you
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Harsh Azad wrote:
Firstly, I could only find postgres 8.1.x RPM for CentOS 5, could not find
any RPM for 8.2.4. Is there any 8.2.4 RPM for CentOS 5?
You've already been pointed in the right direction. Devrim, the person who
handles this packaging, does a great job of
James Mansion escribió:
If what you mean is that pg has a design that's heavily oriented
towards things that tend to be cheap on POSIX and doesn't use the core
Win32 features effectively, then let's track that as an optimisation
opportunity for the Win32 port.
Already done for 8.3 (actual
40 matches
Mail list logo
