On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
FWIW, EnterpriseDB's InfiniCache provides the same caching benefit. The
way that works is when PG goes to evict a page from shared buffers that page
gets compressed and stuffed into a memcache cluster. When PG determines
On 05/03/2011 01:48 PM, Joel Reymont wrote:
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to
get the best performance?
Use EC2 and other Amazon hosting for cloud-based client access only.
Their shared disk services are universally despised by basically
everyone who has
FWIW, EnterpriseDB's InfiniCache provides the same caching benefit. The way
that works is when PG goes to evict a page from shared buffers that page gets
compressed and stuffed into a memcache cluster. When PG determines that a
given page isn't in shared buffers it will then check that
On Wed, 4 May 2011, Josh Berkus wrote:
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 17:02:53 -0700
From: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
To: postgres performance list pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2
FWIW, EnterpriseDB's InfiniCache provides the same caching benefit. The way
- Original Message -
From: Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com
To: postgres performance list pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2011 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2
So memcached basically replaces the filesystem?
That sounds cool, but I'm wondering
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the best
performance?
Thanks in advance, Joel
--
- for hire: mac osx device driver ninja, kernel extensions and usb drivers
On May 3, 2011 11:48:35 am Joel Reymont wrote:
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the
best performance?
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS?
--
- for hire: mac osx device driver ninja,
On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS?
Trying to, yes.
Let's see ...
EBS volumes seem to vary in speed. Some are
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Alan Hodgson ahodg...@simkin.ca wrote:
On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips for this. EBS seems to suck pretty bad.
Alan, can you elaborate? Are you using PG on top of EBS?
iowait is a problem on any platform that relies on spinning media, compared
to RAM.
no matter how fast a disk is, and no matter how intelligent the controller
is, you are still dealing with an access speed differential of 10^6 (speed
of disk access compared to memory access).
i have had good
2011, Alan Hodgson wrote:
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 13:09:51 -0700
From: Alan Hodgson ahodg...@simkin.ca
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] amazon ec2
On May 3, 2011 12:43:13 pm you wrote:
On May 3, 2011, at 8:41 PM, Alan Hodgson wrote:
I am also interested in tips
On 5/3/11 11:48 AM, Joel Reymont wrote:
What are the best practices for setting up PG 9.x on Amazon EC2 to get the
best performance?
Yes. Don't use EC2.
There is no best performance on EC2. There's not even good
performance. Basically, EC2 is the platform for when performance
doesn't
Mark Rostron wrote:
the success/failure of it depends on your typical query activity, the
size of your critical result set, and whether you are able to get
enough RAM to make this work.
Basically, it all comes down to does the working set of data I access
frequently fit in RAM? If it does,
Greg Spiegelberg wrote:
I ran pgbench tests late last year comparing EC2, GoGrid, a 5 year-old
lab server and a new server. Whether I used a stock postgresql.conf
or tweaked, the current 8.4 or 9.0, or varied the EC2 instance size
EC2 was always at the bottom ranging from 409.834 to 693.100
15 matches
Mail list logo
