Having WAL on a separate drive from the database would be something of
a win. I'd buy that 1 disk for OS+WAL and then RAID [something]
across the other two drives for the database would be pretty helpful.
Just my .02,
I did a lot of testing before I deployed our ~50GB postgresql databases
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 07:34, Jeff wrote:
What I'm wondering about is what folks experience with software raid vs
hardware raid on linux is. A friend of mine ran a set of benchmarks at
work and found sw raid was running obscenely faster than the mylex and
(some other brand that isn't 3ware)
Anybody used Linux with EMC Clariions for PG databases?
Any good war stories, pros, cons, performance results ?
I'm wearing thin on my 6 disk 0+1 configuration and looking for
something beefy, possibly for clustering, and I'm wondering what the net
wisdom is. :)
On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 01:56, Gary Doades wrote:
Unfortunately I don't understand the question!
My background is the primarily Win32. The last time I used a *nix OS
was about 20 years ago apart from occasional dips into the linux OS
over the past few years. If you can tell be how to find
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 17:27, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-Currently, the internal RAID volume is ext3 filesystem. Any
recommendations for the filesystem on the new FC volume? Rieserfs?
What Linux distributions are popular in here for PG+XFS?
I'm very disappointed that Redhat
Another possibly useless datapoint on this thread for anyone who's
curious ... open_sync absolutely stinks over NFS at least on Linux. :)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I ran quite a few file system benchmarks in RHAS x86-64 and FC2 x86-64
on a Sun V40z - I did see very consistent 50% improvements in bonnie++
moving from RHAS to FC2 with ext2/ext3 on SAN.
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 23:51 -0800, William Yu wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
William Yu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consider Sun's new line of Opterons. They've been around for a couple of
years under the Newisys name. I'm using dozens of them for web servers
and PG servers and so far both the v20z and v40z have been excellent
performers with solid reliability. The pricing was also competitive
since Sun is
that supports 16GB of RAM)
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 06:38 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Cott Lang wrote:
Most of mine I got through a Sun reseller. Some of mine I got off of
Ebay. You should be able to get them a lot cheaper than than retail web
However, even full retail seems like
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 20:53 -0500, Mike Rylander wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:38:50 -0800, Joshua D. Drake
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's true :) One of the reasons the compaq's are expensive
is they supposedly use a quad board, even for the dual machine.
Which means a different opteron
Have you already considered application/database tuning? Adding
indexes? shared_buffers large enough? etc.
Your database doesn't seem that large for the hardware you've already
got. I'd hate to spend $7k and end up back in the same boat. :)
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 13:04 +, Steve Poe wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 17:36 +, Steve Poe wrote:
I agree with you. Unfortunately, I am not the developer of the
application. The vendor uses ProIV which connects via ODBC. The vendor
could certain do some tuning and create more indexes where applicable. I
am encouraging the vendor to
In my sporadic benchmark testing, the only consistent 'trick' I found
was that the best thing I could do for performance sequential
performance was allocating a bunch of mirrored pair LUNs and stripe
them with software raid. This made a huge difference (~2X) in sequential
performance, and a
Mail list logo