First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is a sure fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame me all you want, it doesn't make it less true).Second, run bonnie++ benchmark against your disk array(s) to see what performance you are getting, and make sure
These number are pretty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close to perfect infact. Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAID controller than will read indpendently from mirrors.Alex
On 8/8/06, Steve Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke,Here are the results of two runs of 16GB
Hello
I have pg_autovacuum running with the arguments:
pg_autovacuum -D -s 120 -v 1
the database is postgresql 8.0.0
Sometimes load average on server raises to 20 and it is almost impossible to
login via SSH
When I'm logging in finally, I see there is cpu usage: 6% and iowait 95%
ps ax
* Alex Turner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is a sure
fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame me all
you want, it doesn't make it less true).
Yeah, actually, it does make it less true since, well, it's
Alvaro,
* Alex Turner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The other thing is you will probably want to turn on stats in postgres to
figure out which queries are the bad ones (does anyone have good docs posted
for this?). Once you have identified the bad queries, you can explain
analyze them, and
On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
Has anyone worked with server before. I've read the SmartArray 6i is a
poor performer, I wonder if the SmartArray 642 adapter would have the
same fate?
My newest db is a DL385, 6 disks. It runs very nicely. I have no
issues with the 6i
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ruben Rubio):
Hi, I have a question with shared_buffer.
Ok, I have a server with 4GB of RAM
-
# cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 4086484 kB
[...]
-
So, if I want to, for example, shared_buffer to take 3 GB of RAM then
shared_buffer would be 393216 (3 *
I agree, I think these say you are getting 240MB/s sequential reads and 1000
seeks per second.
That's pretty much the best you'd expect.
- Luke
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-Original Message-
From: Alex Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Hi,
I have a query that use a function and some column test to select row.
It's in the form of:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE TABLE.COLUMN1=something
AND TABLE.COLUMN2=somethingelse
AND function(TABLE.COLUMN3,TABLE.COLUMN4) 0;
The result of the function does NOT depend only from the
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:49, Patrice Beliveau wrote:
Hi,
I have a query that use a function and some column test to select row.
It's in the form of:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE TABLE.COLUMN1=something
AND TABLE.COLUMN2=somethingelse
AND
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 12:49, Patrice Beliveau wrote:
Hi,
I have a query that use a function and some column test to select row.
It's in the form of:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE TABLE.COLUMN1=something
AND TABLE.COLUMN2=somethingelse
AND
Patrice Beliveau [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT * FROM TABLE
WHERE TABLE.COLUMN1=something
AND TABLE.COLUMN2=somethingelse
AND function(TABLE.COLUMN3,TABLE.COLUMN4) 0;
I find out that the function process every row even if the row should be
rejected as per the first or the second
I've asked for some help here a few months ago and got some really helpfull
answers regarding RAID controllers and server configuration. Up until
recently I've been running PostgreSQL on a two year old Dual Xeon 3.06Ghz
machine with a single channel RAID controller (previously Adaptec 2200S, but
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
Does anyone know a vendor that might be able provide such setup?
I would look
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
Does anyone know a vendor
The 1+0 on the WAL is better than on PGDATA? I guess I'm confused about the
write sequence of the data. I will research more, thank you!
-Kenji
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:59:09PM -0500, Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:43, Kenji Morishige wrote:
I've asked for some help here a few months ago and got some really helpfull
answers regarding RAID controllers and server configuration. Up until
recently I've been running PostgreSQL on a two year old Dual Xeon 3.06Ghz
machine with a single
Great info, which vendor were you looking at for these Opterons? I am goign
to be purchasing 2 of these. :) I do need 24/7 reliability.
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:08:29PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:43, Kenji Morishige wrote:
I've asked for some help here a few months
On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Kenji Morishige wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
Does anyone know a
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0 array for PGDATA
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for pg_xlog
On Aug 8, 2006, at 5:28 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Thomas F. O'Connell wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I am considering a setup such as this:
- At least dual cpu (possibly with 2 cores each)
- 4GB of RAM
- 2 disk RAID 1 array for root disk
- 4 disk RAID 1+0
In which case, which is theoretically better (since I don't have a
convenient test bed at the moment) for WAL in a write-heavy environment?
More disks in a RAID 10 (which should theoretically improve write
throughput in general, to a point) or a 2-disk RAID 1? Does it become a
On Aug 8, 2006, at 6:24 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
In which case, which is theoretically better (since I don't have a
convenient test bed at the moment) for WAL in a write-heavy
environment? More disks in a RAID 10 (which should theoretically
improve write throughput in general, to a
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Alex Turner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
First off - very few third party tools support debian. Debian is a sure
fire way to have an unsupported system. Use RedHat or SuSe (flame me all
you want, it doesn't make it less true).
Yeah, actually, it
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
Steve,
Sun box with 4-disc array (4GB RAM. 4 167GB 10K SCSI RAID10
LSI MegaRAID 128MB). This is after 8 runs.
dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,us,12,2,5
dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,sy,59,50,53
dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,wa,1,0,0
Steve,
Are any of the disks not healthy? Do you see any I/O
errors in dmesg?
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.
Based on
With such a budget you should easily be able to get something like:
- A 1U high-performance server (for instance the Dell 1950 with 2x
Woodcrest 5160, 16GB of FB-Dimm memory, one 5i and one 5e perc raid
controller and some disks internally)
- An external SAS direct attached disks storage
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
