Thanks for the suggestions in the FS types- especially the Debian oriented
info. I'll start by playing with the memory allocation parameters that I
originally listed (seems like they should provide results in a way that is
unaffected by the disk IO). Then once I have them at optimal values, move
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Ang Chin Han wrote:
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 17 Jul 2003 at 10:41, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
I'm using ext2. For now, I'll leave this and the OS version alone. If I
I appreciate your approach but it almost proven that ext2 is not the best and
fastest out
On 2003-07-17 10:41:35 -0500, Nick Fankhauser wrote:
I'm using ext2. For now, I'll leave this and the OS version alone. If I
I'd upgrade to a journaling filesystem as soon as possible for reliability.
Testing in our own environment has shown that PostgreSQL performs best on ext3
(yes, better
Be sure to mount noatime
I did chattr -R +A /var/lib/pgsql/data
that should do the trick as well or am I wrong?
regards,
Oli
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2003-07-18 18:20:55 +0200, Oliver Scheit wrote:
Be sure to mount noatime
I did chattr -R +A /var/lib/pgsql/data
that should do the trick as well or am I wrong?
According to the man page it gives the same effect. There are a few things you
should consider though:
- new files won't be
Be sure to mount noatime
I did chattr -R +A /var/lib/pgsql/data
that should do the trick as well or am I wrong?
According to the man page it gives the same effect.
There are a few things you should consider though:
- new files won't be created with the same options (I think),
so
I'm confused:
Ang Chin Han wrote:
We've been using ext3fs for our production systems. (Red Hat Advanced
Server 2.1)
Vincent van Leeuwen wrote:
I'd upgrade to a journaling filesystem as soon as possible for
reliability.
...About one year ago I considered moving to a journaling file system,
Nick,
...About one year ago I considered moving to a journaling file system, but
opted not to because it seems like that's what WAL does for us already. How
does putting a journaling file system under it add more reliability?
It lets you restart your server quickly after an unexpected
...About one year ago I considered moving to a journaling file system, but
opted not to because it seems like that's what WAL does for us already. How
does putting a journaling file system under it add more reliability?
WAL only works if the WAL files are actually written to disk and can be
Nick Fankhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm departing in three ways from the simple IDE
model that (I presume) the default random page cost of 4 is based on- The
disks are SCSI RAID and the FS would be different.
Actually, the default 4 is based on experiments I did quite awhile back
on
Shridhar-
I appreciate your thoughts- I'll be running some before after tests on
this using one of our development/hot-swap boxes, so I'll report the results
back to the list.
A few more thoughts/questions:
1. 30 users does not seem to be much of a oevrhead. If possible
try doing away with
Nick,
I'll try that approach while testing. Is it the case that the sort memory
is allocated for each connection and becomes unavailable to other processes
while the connection exists? If so, since I'm using a connection pool, I
should be able to control total usage precisely. Without a
Wrong, actually. Sort memory is allocated *per sort*, not per
connnection or
per query. So a single complex query could easily use 4xsort_mem if it
has
several merge joins ...
Thanks for the correction- it sounds like this is one where usage can't be
precisely controlled in a dynamic user
Nick Fankhauser wrote:
Thanks for the correction- it sounds like this is one where usage
can't be precisely controlled in a dynamic user environment I just
need to get a feel for what works under a load that approximates my
production system.
I think the most important point here is that if you
14 matches
Mail list logo
