On Wednesday 07 January 2009 04:17:10 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
1. The package it lives in is called sysstat. Most Linux distros do
*not* install sysstat by default. Somebody should beat up on them
about that. :)
Hehe, although sysstat and friends did have issues on Linux for a long
Hi,
We have recently installed slony and tsrted replication on one of our test
machines. When we start inserting data in to the replicated database, the
replication is taking properly. Over a period of time the lag increases
between the two database.
Looking further we found that, sl_log_1 and
-- Forwarded message --
From: jose fuenmayor jaf...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Subject: Casting issue!!
To: psql-ad...@postgresql.org
Hi all I am trying to migrate from postgresql 8.2.x to 8.3.x, i have an
issue with casting values when i try to perform the auto
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, jose fuenmayor wrote:
Hi all I am trying to migrate from postgresql 8.2.x to 8.3.x, i have an issue
with casting values when i try to
perform the auto cast , it does not work and I get an error, how can i perform
auto casting on 8.3 without
rewrite my source code, I am
Hi Jose,
why haven't you post an example of the failing query, data and the exact
error message? The casting should work on 8.3 (and it works for me) so I
guess there are some invalid data, invalid SQL or something like that.
Anyway I doubt this is a performance issue - this falls into generic
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, jose fuenmayor jaf...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all I am trying to migrate from postgresql 8.2.x to
8.3.x, i have an
issue with casting values when i try to perform the auto
cast , it does not
work and I get an error, how can i perform auto casting on
8.3 without
Simon Waters wrote:
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 04:17:10 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
1. The package it lives in is called sysstat. Most Linux distros do
*not* install sysstat by default. Somebody should beat up on them
about that. :)
Hehe, although sysstat and friends did have issues on
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 18:18 +0530, Nimesh Satam wrote:
Hi,
We have recently installed slony and tsrted replication on one of our
test machines. When we start inserting data in to the replicated
database, the replication is taking properly. Over a period of time
the lag increases between the
Hello.
Suppose I perform 1000 RANDOM writes into a file. These writes are saved
into Linux writeback buffer and are flushed to the disc asynchronously,
that's OK.
The question is: will physical writes be performed later in the sequence of
physical SECTOR position on the disc (minimizing head
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
Hello.
Suppose I perform 1000 RANDOM writes into a file. These writes are saved
into Linux writeback buffer and are flushed to the disc asynchronously,
that's OK.
The question is: will physical writes be performed later in the sequence of
physical
Ok, here some information:
OS: Centos 5.x (Linux 2.6.18-53.1.21.el5 #1 SMP Tue May 20 09:34:18 EDT
2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux)
RAID: it's a hardware RAID controller
The disks are 9600rpm SATA drives
(6 disk 1+0 RAID array and 2 separate disks for the OS).
About iostat (on sdb I have
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.comwrote:
I concur with Merlin you're I/O bound.
Adding to his post, what RAID controller are you running, does it have
cache, does the cache have battery backup, is the cache set to write
back or write through?
At the
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Stefano Nichele
stefano.nich...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com
wrote:
I concur with Merlin you're I/O bound.
Adding to his post, what RAID controller are you running, does it have
cache, does the cache
Just to elaborate on the horror that is a Dell perc5e. We have one in
a 1950 with battery backed cache (256 Meg I think). It has an 8 disk
500Gig SATA drive RAID-10 array and 4 1.6GHz cpus and 10 Gigs ram.
This server currently serves as a mnogo search server. Here's what
vmstat 1 looks like
OK, thank you.
Now - PostgreSQL-related question. If the system reorders writes to minimize
seeking, I suppose that in heavy write-loaded PostgreSQL instalation dstat
(or iostat) realtime write statistics should be close to the maximum
possible value reported by bonnie++ (or simple dd) utility.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I cannot understand how Dell stays in business.
There's a continuous stream of people who expect RAID5 to perform well,
too, yet this surprises you?
--
* Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
--
Sent via
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I cannot understand how Dell stays in business.
There's a continuous stream of people who expect RAID5 to perform well, too,
yet this surprises you?
I guess I've underestimated
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
OK, thank you.
Now - PostgreSQL-related question. If the system reorders writes to minimize
seeking, I suppose that in heavy write-loaded PostgreSQL instalation dstat
(or iostat) realtime write statistics should be close to the maximum
possible value
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
The really bad news is that
you can't
generally plug in a real RAID controller on a Dell. We put
an Areca
168-LP PCI-x8 in one of our 1950s and it wouldn't even
turn on, got a
CPU Error.
Hmm, I had to pull the perc5i's
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
The question is: will physical writes be performed later in the sequence of
physical SECTOR position on the disc (minimizing head seeking)? Or Linux
background writer knows nothing about physical on-disc placement and flushes
data in order it is saved
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to elaborate on the horror that is a Dell perc5e. We
have one in
a 1950 with battery backed cache (256 Meg I think). It has
an 8 disk
500Gig SATA drive RAID-10 array and 4 1.6GHz cpus and 10
Gigs ram.
Our perc5i
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Glyn Astill glynast...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to elaborate on the horror that is a Dell perc5e. We
have one in
a 1950 with battery backed cache (256 Meg I think). It has
an 8 disk
500Gig SATA
Since the discussion involves Dell PERC controllers, does anyone know if
the performance of LSI cards (those with the same chipsets as Dell) also
have similarly poor performance?
I have a LSI ELP card, so would like to know what other people's
experiences are...
-bborie
Scott Marlowe
If you're stuck with a Dell, the Adaptec 5 series works, I'm using 5085's in a
pair and get 1200 MB/sec streaming reads best case with 20 SATA drives in RAID
10 (2 sets of 10, software raid 0 on top). Of course, Dell doesn't like you
putting in somebody else's RAID card, but they support the
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Scott Carey sc...@richrelevance.com wrote:
If you're stuck with a Dell, the Adaptec 5 series works, I'm using 5085's in
a pair and get 1200 MB/sec streaming reads best case with 20 SATA drives in
RAID 10 (2 sets of 10, software raid 0 on top). Of course, Dell
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
RE: Perc raid controllers
Unfortunately switching the disks to jbod and going software
raid doesn't seem to help much. The biggest problem with dell
Yeah, I noticed that too when I was trying to get a good config from
Sequential read performance means precisely squat for most database
loads.
Depends on the database workload. Many queries for me may scan 50GB of data
for aggregation.
Besides, it is a good test for making sure your RAID card doesn't suck.
Especially running tests with sequential access
da...@lang.hm wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Dmitry Koterov wrote:
OK, thank you.
Now - PostgreSQL-related question. If the system reorders writes to
minimize
seeking, I suppose that in heavy write-loaded PostgreSQL instalation
dstat
(or iostat) realtime write statistics should be close to
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I cannot understand how Dell stays in business.
There's a continuous stream of people who expect RAID5 to perform well, too,
yet this surprises you?
I guess
29 matches
Mail list logo
