? We just upgraded our server's to dual 2.8Ghz Xeon
CPUs from dual Xeon 1.8Ghz which unfortunately HT built-in. We also
upgraded our database from version 7.3.4 to 7.4.2
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through
feedback/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
be
minimized here by using PL/pgSQL?
Server Info:
Centos 3.3 (RHEL 3.x equivelent)
4GB RAM
Adaptec 2100S RAID
Qlogic QLA2100 Fibre
CPU?
Dual Xeon 2.8 CPUs with HT turned off.
Thanks again.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner
going
to do.
Dual Xeon 2.8 CPUs with HT turned off.
Yeah, thought it was a Xeon.
If we went with a single CPU, like Athlon/Opertron64, would CS
storming go away?
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists
, we can test it out
if this is possible.
Any likelyhood this CS storm will be understood in the next couple months?
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
.
Since I am a dba novice, I did not physically build this server, nor did
I write the application the hospital runs on, but I have the opportunity
to make it better, I'd thought I should seek some advice from those who
have been down this road before. Suggestions/ideas anyone?
Thanks.
Steve Poe
of approval, then the vendor will tell us what they support.
Thanks.
Steve Poe
Tom Lane wrote:
Steve Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Situation: An 24/7 animal hospital (100 employees) runs their business
on Centos 3.3 (RHEL 3) Postgres 7.4.2 (because they have to)
[ itch... ] Surely
it is CPU bound. At our busiest hour, the CPU is idle
about 70% on average down to 30% idle at its heaviest. Context switching
averages about 4-5K per hour with momentary peaks to 25-30K for a
minute. Overall disk performance is poor (35mb per sec).
Thanks for your input.
Steve Poe
Steve, can we clarify that you are not currently having any performance
issues, you're just worried about failure? Recommendations should be based
on whether improving applicaiton speed is a requirement ...
Josh,
The priorities are: 1)improve safety/failure-prevention, 2) improve
performance.
also waiting onProIV developers feedback. If their ProvIV modules will
not run under AMD64, or take advantage of the processor, then I'll stick
with the server we have.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe
.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vacuum_mem = 65536
effective_cache_size = 65536
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
?
These two drive arrays main purpose is for our database. For those
messed with drive arrays before, how would you slice-up the drive array?
Will database performance be effected how our RAID10 is configured? Any
suggestions?
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast
war, I am just trying to learn
here. It would seem the more drives you could place in a RAID
configuration, the performance would increase.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http
for more disk thrash testing.
I am new to this; maybe someone else may be able to speak from more
experience.
Regards.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's
. I used OSDB
since it is simple to implement and use. Although OSDL's OLTP testing
will closer to reality.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
,
if memory serves correctly, will occupy around 800-900M of disc space in
pg_xlog.
Steve Poe
Nurlan Mukhanov (AL/EKZ) wrote:
Hello.
I'm trying to restore my database from dump in several parrallel processes, but
restore process works too slow.
Number of rows about 100 000 000,
RAM: 8192M
CPU
, but some
clarity could help.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
the 10-15%
baseline, and 3) find out what the mean and standard deviation between
all your results.
If your results are within that range, this maybe normal. I follow-up
with you later on what I do.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have
Tom,
Just a quick thought: after each run/sample of pgbench, I drop the
database and recreate it. When I don't my results become more skewed.
Steve Poe
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
Interesting. I should've included standard deviation in my pgbench
iteration patch. Maybe I'll go back and do
?
Steve Poe
Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:
Considering the default vacuuming behavior, why would this be?
-tfo
--
Thomas F. O'Connell
Co-Founder, Information Architect
Sitening, LLC
Strategic Open Source: Open Your i
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 37203-6320
615-260-0005
Joshua,
This article was in July 2002, so is there update to this information?
When will a new ODBC driver be available for testing? Is there a release
of the ODBC driver with better performance than 7.0.3.0200 for a 7.4.x
database?
Steve Poe
We have mentioned it on the list.
http
IBM, Sun and HP have their fairly pricey Opteron systems.
The IT people are not swell about unsupported purchases off ebay.
Mischa,
I certainly understand your concern, but the price and support
sometimes go hand-in-hand. You may have to pick your batttles if your
want more bang for the buck
%.
Is that 50% just for the Dell PERC4 RAID on RH AS 3.0? Sound like
severe context switching.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL
your experience?
I don't forsee more 10-15 concurrent sessions running for an their OLTP
application.
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
?
Have you made changes to the postgresql.conf? kernel.vm settings? IO
scheduler?
If you're not doing so already, you may consider running sar (iostat) to
monitor when the hanging occurs if their is a memory / IO bottleneck
somewhere.
Good luck.
Steve Poe
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:04 -0600, Dan
is not the best
choice for the database. RAID10 would be a better solution (using 8 of
your disks) then take the remaining disk and do mirror with your pg_xlog
if possible.
Best of luck,
Steve Poe
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:23 +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
Hi all, we're running PG8 on a Sun V250 with 8GB
-100h to gain 2-4% over a course of a month for a
24x7 operation would seem worth the investment?
I would assume that dbt2 with STP helps minimize the amount of hours
someone has to invest to determine performance gains with configurable
options?
Steve Poe
If someone spends 100h working on one
and
max_fsm_relations after a full vacuum analyze before doing too much with
sort mem.
Your mileage may vary.
Best of luck.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
exists. Unfortunately, I don't have room on the RAID1 that the OS exists
on(Centos Linux 4.1).
Anyone have any experience moving the XFS log to the pg_xlog? The
guessing the the benefit / cost will cancel each other out.
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast
Would it not be faster to do a dump/reload of the table than reindex or
is it about the same?
Steve Poe
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 13:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Emil Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not yet, the db is in production use and I have to plan for a down-time
Rory,
While I don't have my specific stats with my from my tests with XFS and
bonnie for our company's db server, I do recall vividly that seq. output
did not increase dramatically until I had 8+ discs in a RAID10
configuration on an LSI card. I was not using LVM. If I had less than 8
discs, seq.
Tim,
When I have done ODBC load tests with stats_block_level enabled on (20
mins. per test), I've seen about 3-4% performance hit. Your mileage may
vary.
Steve Poe
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 18:49 -0500, mcelroy, tim wrote:
Good evening,
Does anyone know how much of a performance hit turning
I found an average 14% improvement Using Pg 7.4.11 with odbc-bench as my
test bed with Wu's kernel patch. I have not tried version 8.x yet.
Thanks Wu.
Steve Poe
Using Postgresql 7.4.11, on an dual Opteron with 4GB
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 09:38 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
Greetings,
I'd like
Dell and
not performed well as well as Xeon's HT issues.
Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core
CPUs and/or Dell's new servers?
I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
Opeteron-based server.
Thanks.
Steve Poe
Dave, Joshua, Scott (and all),
Thanks for your feedback, while I do appreciate it, I did not intent on
making this discussion buy this instead...I whole-heartly agree with
you. Joshua, you made the best comment, it is a business decision for
the client. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
to go to a 10+ disc array (from 3)
and enough RAM to load half the DB into memory.
Steve
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 12:22 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core
CPUs and/or Dell's new
a few percentage point (like I have
done). If you could borrow more RAM and/or more discs for your
tests, Testing newer kernels and read-ahead patches may benefit
you as well.
Best of luck.
Steve Poe
On 8/2/06, Milen Kulev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Like, Mark , Alvaro and Andrew,Thank you very
.
Thanks for any advice.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve,On 8/5/06 4:10 PM, Steve Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am do some consulting for an animal hospital in the Boston, MA area. They wanted a new server to run their database on. The client wants
everything from one vendor, they wanted Dell initially, I'd advised against it. I
There is 64MB on the 6i and 192MB on the 642 controller. I wish the
controllers had a wrieback enable option like the LSI MegaRAID
adapters have. I have tried splitting the cache accelerator 25/75 75/25
0/100 100/0 but the results really did not improve.
SteveOn 8/7/06, Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL
Luke,
Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS.
scsi disc array
xfs
,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1,0,16,3172,7,+,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+,+++,2484,8
scsi disc array
xfs
Sounds like there are a few moving parts here, one of which is the ODBCdriver.
Yes, I need to use it since my clients use it for their veterinary application.
First - using 7.4.x postgres is a big variable - not much experience on thislist with 7.4.x anymore.Like the previous, we have to use it
Are any of the disks not healthy? Do you see any I/O errors in dmesg?
Luke,
In my vmstat report, I it is an average per minute not per-second. Also,
I found that in the first minute of the very first run, the HP's bi
value hits a high of 221184 then it tanks after that.
Steve
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, the two internal SCSI drives, which are on the 6i adapter, generated a
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
support and report backto this list what you find out?- Luke -Original Message- From: Steve Poe [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:33 PM To: Luke Lonergan Cc: Alex Turner; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385
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
.
SteveOn 8/9/06, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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
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
:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well. If you put data xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog). If he's doing the same
, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
If you put data xlog on the same array, put them on seperate partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).Got any data to back that up
:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
If you put data xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog
of is on the SmartArray 642 RAID adapter.SteveOn 8/18/06, Luke Lonergan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Steve,If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great.
Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe it's 6disks in a RAID10?- LukeOn 8/16/06 7:10 PM, Steve Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED
Luke, ISTM that the main performance issue for xlog is going to be the rate at
which fdatasync operations complete, and the stripe size shouldn't hurtthat.I thought so. However, I've also tried running the PGDATA off of the RAID1 as a test and it is poor.
What are your postgresql.conf settings for
things up quite a bit on the xlog.
WRT the difference between the two systems, I'm kind of stumped.
- Luke
On 8/18/06 12:00 PM, Steve Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke,
ISTM that the main performance issue for xlog is going to be the rate at
which fdatasync operations complete, and the str
I am moving our small business application
database application supporting
a 24/7 animal hospital to use 8.0.15 from
7.4.19 (it will not support 8.1, 8.2. or 8.3).
Now, we can choose a new a disc array. SATA
seems cheaper and you can get more discs but
I want to stay with SCSI. Any good reasons
:37 AM, Steve Poe wrote:
I need to consider a vendor for the new disc array (6-
to 8 discs). The local vendor (in the San Francisco Bay Area),
I've not been completely pleased with, so I am considering using
Dell storage connecting to an retail version LSI MegaRAID 320-2X card.
Anyone use
The owners of the animal hospital where I work at want to consider live/hot
backups through out the day so we're less likely to lose a whole
day of transaction. We use Postgresql 8.0.15. We do 3AM
backups, using pg_dumpall, to a file when there is very little activity.
The hospital enjoys the
version?
Steve
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Poe wrote:
The owners of the animal hospital where I work at want to consider
live/hot
backups through out the day so we're less likely to lose a whole
61 matches
Mail list logo
