goal.
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.
stamp 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... ]
for less than 7k.
I don't believe 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).
Th
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.
will perform. I am
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:
stand the context of how the hardware is being used.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s = 1
sort_mem = 8192
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
ell under Linux?
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
---(e
a "whose better" 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 extensiv
OSDB 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 col
If SATA drives don't have the ability to replace SCSI for a multi-user
Postgres apps, but you needed to save on cost (ALWAYS an issue),
could/would you implement SATA for your logs (pg_xlog) and keep the rest
on SCSI?
Steve Poe
Mohan, Ross wrote:
I've been doing some reading up on th
ce of tuning lies with the hardware. The answer is
*both* hardware and application code. Finding the right balance is key. Your
mileage may vary.
Steve Poe
If, however, in the far-more-likely case that the application code
or system/business process is the throttle point, it'd be a great
us
TP-type transactions. 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
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: 8192
ation, but some
clarity could help.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
ll performance above 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)-
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
mment?
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 iâ„¢
http://www.sitening.com/
110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
Nashville, TN 372
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 or
Past recommendations for a good RAID card (for SCSI) have been the LSI
MegaRAID 2x. This unit comes with 128MB of RAM on-board. Has anyone
found by increasing the on-board RAM, did Postgresql performed better?
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast
yes?
>Update3 is currenly throttling your I/O by about 50%.
>
>
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,
been 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
this list, RAID5 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 run
spending the 50-100h 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 1
, I look at checking your max_fsm_pages 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 t
_xlog
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
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 performan
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,
n the past 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 se
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 du
r
areas than chasing down 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
re garbage.
Thanks for any advice.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
t;[EMAIL 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 Del
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 P
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
,16G,83320,99,155641,25,73662,10,81756,96,243352,18,1029.1,0,16,3119,10,
y from mirrors.
Alex
On 8/8/06, Steve Poe <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luke,Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS.scsi disc arrayxfs ,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1,0,16,3172,7,+,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+,+++,2484,8scsi disc ar
retty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close toperfect infact. Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAIDcontroller than will read indpendently from mirrors.
AlexOn 8/8/06, Steve Poe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Luke,>> Here are the results of two runs of 16
I don't have my vmstat reports with me, but I recall the CPU utilitization on the HP was about 50% higher. I need to check on this.Steve
On 8/8/06, Luke Lonergan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve,On 8/8/06 8:01 AM, "Steve Poe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Thanks for the
>Sounds like there are a few moving parts here, one of which is the ODBC>driver.
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 this>list with 7.4.x anymore.Like the previous, we have to use i
> 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]> wr
ou contact them through HP tech 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
> Subje
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 knowl
does.
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 whi
I believe it does, I'll need to check.Thanks for the correction.
Steve On 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 th
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
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 t
el Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>
> > 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
e:> 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 (
M, "Michael Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
>
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, "St
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
ts.
That could speed 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
whi
high
regarding CS levels? 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
100 Fibre
Any feedback/suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
Steve Poe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
using ODBC. Will context switching 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)
do my own leg work to help decide what we're 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)-
h CS storm, 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
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 t
wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 2:37 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
> >
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 ove
we 8.0.15 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
68 matches
Mail list logo