On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:13, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> > Since PG doesn't have active-active clustering, that's out, but since
> > the database will be very static, why not have, say 8 machines, each
> > with it's own copy of the database? (Since there are so few updates,
> > you feed the u
Folks,
> Since PG doesn't have active-active clustering, that's out, but since
> the database will be very static, why not have, say 8 machines, each
> with it's own copy of the database? (Since there are so few updates,
> you feed the updates to a litle Perl app that then makes the changes
> on
On 25 Jul 2003 at 18:41, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> what exactly do you mean from a pilot program?
Like get a quad CPU box, load the data and ask only 10 operators to test the
system..
Beta testing basically..
Bye
Shridhar
--
The man on tops walks a lonely street; the "chain" of command is often
On 25 Jul 2003 17:13 EEST you wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2003 at 16:38, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> > this is kind of directory assistance application. actually the select statements
> > are not
> > very complex. the database contain 25 million subscriber records and the operators
> > searches
> > for the
On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:38, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2003 23:25 EEST you wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:25, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> > > On 24 Jul 2003 17:08 EEST you wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 24 Jul 2003 at 15:54, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > we do not have memory
On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:42, William Yu wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the performance impact seems to be minimal.
> There's a periodic storm of replication updates in cases where there's
> mass updates sync last resync. But if you have mostly reads and few
> writes, you shouldn't see this situation
On 25 Jul 2003 at 16:38, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> this is kind of directory assistance application. actually the select statements are
> not
> very complex. the database contain 25 million subscriber records and the operators
> searches
> for the subscriber numbers or addresses. there are not muc
On 24 Jul 2003 23:25 EEST you wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:25, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> > On 24 Jul 2003 17:08 EEST you wrote:
> >
> > > On 24 Jul 2003 at 15:54, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > we do not have memory problem or disk problems. as I have seen in the list the
> > best wa
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:25, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2003 17:08 EEST you wrote:
>
> > On 24 Jul 2003 at 15:54, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
[snip]
>
> we do not have memory problem or disk problems. as I have seen in the list the best
> way to
> use disks are using raid 10 for data and raid
| first of all I would like to learn that, any of you use the postgresql
| within the clustered environment? Or, let me ask you the question, in
| different manner, can we use postgresql in a cluster environment? If
| we can do what is the support method of the postgresql for clusters?
You could do
On 24 Jul 2003 18:44 EEST you wrote:
> > Now, the second question is related to the performance of the database. Assuming
> > we have a
> > dell's poweredge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz Xeon processors having 2 MB of cache for
> > each, with the
> > main memory of lets say 32 GB. We can either use a sm
> Now, the second question is related to the performance of the database. Assuming we
> have a
> dell's poweredge 6650 with 4 x 2.8 Ghz Xeon processors having 2 MB of cache for
> each, with the
> main memory of lets say 32 GB. We can either use a small SAN from EMC or we can put
> all disks
> in
On 24 Jul 2003 17:08 EEST you wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2003 at 15:54, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
>
> > The questions for this explanation are:
> > 1 - Can we use postgresql within clustered environment?
> > 2 - if the answer is yes, in which method can we use postgresql within a
> > cluster?
>
On 24 Jul 2003 at 15:54, Kasim Oztoprak wrote:
> The questions for this explanation are:
> 1 - Can we use postgresql within clustered environment?
> 2 - if the answer is yes, in which method can we use postgresql within a
> cluster?
> active - passive or active - active?
Couple
> > >Adam Witney wrote:
> [snip]
> > If you would go with that one, make sure to get the optional BBWC
> > (Battery Backed Write Cache). Without it the controller
> won't enable
> > the write-back cache (which it really shouldn't, since it
> wouldn't be
> > safe without the batteries). WB cach
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 13:55, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >Adam Witney wrote:
[snip]
> If you would go with that one, make sure to get the optional BBWC
> (Battery Backed Write Cache). Without it the controller won't enable the
> write-back cache (which it really shouldn't, since it wouldn't be safe
>
On Wed, 2003-07-16 at 23:25, Roman Fail wrote:
[snip]
> has every bit of redundancy you can order. While uncommon, the
> backplane is one one of the many single points of failure!
Unless you go with a shared-disk cluster (Oracle 9iRAC or OpenVMS)
or replication.
Face it, if your pockets are dee
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:20:42 +0100
Adam Witney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said something like:
>
> Actually I am going through the same questions myself at the
> moment I would like to have a 2 disk RAID1 and a 4 disk RAID5, so
> need at least 6 disks
>
> Anybody have any suggestions or experie
>Adam Witney wrote:
>> Actually I am going through the same questions myself at the
>moment I
>> would like to have a 2 disk RAID1 and a 4 disk RAID5, so
>need at least 6
>> disks
>>
>> Anybody have any suggestions or experience with other
>hardware manufacturers
>> for this size of set
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 07:57:53AM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
>
> As I said, I've never personally found it necessary to move WAL off to a
> different physical drive. What do you think is the best configuration
On our Solaris test boxes (where, alas, we do not have the luxury of
1/2 TB external R
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 08:20, Adam Witney wrote:
> Anybody have any suggestions or experience with other hardware manufacturers
> for this size of setup? (2U rack, up to 6 disks, 2 processors, ~2GB RAM, if
> possible)
>
> Thanks
>
> adam
Check out http://www.amaxit.com It is all white box stuf
Sorry for the redundant duplication of the repetition.
I should have read the follow-up messages.
Joe Conway wrote:
>
> Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
> > I am currious. How can you have RAID 1+0 with only 2 drives?
> > If you are thinking about partitioning the drives, wont this defeate the
> > purpo
Adam Witney wrote:
Actually I am going through the same questions myself at the moment I
would like to have a 2 disk RAID1 and a 4 disk RAID5, so need at least 6
disks
Anybody have any suggestions or experience with other hardware manufacturers
for this size of setup? (2U rack, up to 6 disk
Jean-Luc Lachance wrote:
I am currious. How can you have RAID 1+0 with only 2 drives?
If you are thinking about partitioning the drives, wont this defeate the
purpose?
Yeah -- Hannu already pointed out that my mind was fuzzy when I made
that statement :-(. See subsequent posts.
Joe
---
I am currious. How can you have RAID 1+0 with only 2 drives?
If you are thinking about partitioning the drives, wont this defeate the
purpose?
JLL
Joe Conway wrote:
>
> [...]
> 2 drives, RAID 1+0: WAL
> 2 drives, RAID 1+0: data
> [...]
---(end of broadcast)--
On 17/7/03 4:09 pm, "Joe Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Witney wrote:
>> I think the issue from the original posters point of view is that the Dell
>> PE2650 can only hold a maximum of 5 internal drives
>>
>
> True enough, but maybe that's a reason to be looking at other
> alternative
Adam Witney wrote:
I think the issue from the original posters point of view is that the Dell
PE2650 can only hold a maximum of 5 internal drives
True enough, but maybe that's a reason to be looking at other
alternatives. I think he said the hardware hasn't been bought yet.
Joe
---
> As I said, I've never personally found it necessary to move WAL off to a
> different physical drive. What do you think is the best configuration
> given the constraint of 5 drives? 1 drive for OS, and 4 for RAID 1+0 for
> data-plus-WAL? I guess the ideal would be to find enough money for that
>
Hannu Krosing wrote:
How do you do RAID 1+0 with just two drives ?
Hmm, good point -- I must have been tired last night ;-). With two
drives you can do mirroring or striping, but not both.
Usually I've seen a pair of mirrored drives for the OS, and a RAID 1+0
array for data. But that requires 6
On 2003-07-16 19:57:22 -0700, Balazs Wellisch wrote:
> We're now stuck on the question of what type of RAID configuration to use
> for this server. RAID 5 offers the best fault tolerance but doesn't perform
> all that well. RAID 10 offers much better performance, but no hot swap. Or
> should we not
Joe Conway kirjutas N, 17.07.2003 kell 07:52:
> To an extent it depends on how big the drives are and how large you
> expect the database to get. For maximal performance you want RAID 1+0
> for data and WAL; and you want OS, data, and WAL each on their own
> drives. So with 5 drives one possible
Balazs Wellisch wrote:
first of all I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my earlier
post. I have a much better understanding of postgres performance
tuning now. In case anyone's interested we've decided to go with RH9
and PostgreSQL 7.3 and we'll do the OS and DB tuning ourselves.
(should be
I've got a Dell 2650 set up with 5 drives and a separate app server connecting with
JDBC. Since you've only got 5 drives, my conclusion regarding the best balance of
performance and redundancy was:
2 drives have the OS, swap, and WAL in RAID-1
3 drives have the data in RAID-5
If you can affo
33 matches
Mail list logo
