On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, mixo wrote:
I have just installed redhat linux 9 which ships with Pg
7.3.2. Pg has to be setup so that data inserts (blobs) should
be able to handle at least 8M at a time.
Nothing has to be done to tune postgresql to handle this, 8 Meg blobs are
no problem as far as I
On 11 Aug 2003 at 23:42, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:50, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
features in minor releases (and thereby introducing all the
attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux
Jeff,
Informix, etc. have spent a lot of time and money working on it.
They also have the advantage of having many paid fulltime
developers who are doing this for a job, not as a weekend hobby
(Compared to the what? 2-3 full time PG developers).
I think 4-6 full-time, actually, plus about
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory S. Williamson)wrote:
FWIW, Informix can be run using a cooked (Unix) file for storing
data or it uses raw disk space and bypasses the ordinary (high
level) UNIX controllers and does its own reads/writes. About 10
times faster and
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:40:20AM -0700, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
Redhat puts ext3 on by default. Consider switching to a non-journaling FS
(ext2?) with the partition that holds your data and WAL.
I would give you exactly the opposite advice:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 08 August 2003 03:28, mixo wrote:
I have just installed redhat linux 9 which ships with Pg
7.3.2. Pg has to be setup so that data inserts (blobs) should
be able to handle at least 8M at a time. The machine has
two P III 933MHz CPU's,
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
features in minor releases (and thereby introducing all the
attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux feature
until it's been through a major version (e.g. things introduced in
2.4.x won't really be
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 13:39, Bruce Momjian wrote:
OK, I got some hard evidence. Here is a discussion on the Linux kernel
mailing list with postings from Allen Cox (ac Linux kernels) and Stephen
Tweedie (ext3 author).
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:52:46AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't use Linux and was just repeating what I had heard from others,
and read in postings. I don't have any first-hand experience with ext2
(except for a laptop I borrowed that wouldn't boot after being shut
off), but others on
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 02:39:19PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
Meaning ... just tell it a raw partition to keep the data on and
Postgre would create its own filesystem ... obviously, doing that
would allow Postgre to bypass all the failings of all filesystems
and rely entirely apon its own rules.
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 11 Aug 2003 at 23:42, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:50, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
features in minor releases (and thereby introducing all the
attendant bugs), I'd think twice about
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rod Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 14:53, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I would give you exactly the opposite advice: _never_ use a
non-journalling fs for your data and WAL. I suppose if you can
afford to lose some transactions, you can do without
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
features in minor releases (and thereby introducing all the
attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux feature
until it's been through a major version (e.g. things introduced in
2.4.x won't really be stable until
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Neil Conway wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 12:52:46AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't use Linux and was just repeating what I had heard from others,
and read in postings. I don't have any first-hand experience with ext2
(except for a laptop I borrowed that
Uh, the ext2 developers say it isn't 100% reliable --- at least that is
that was told. I don't know any personally, but I mentioned it while I
was visiting Red Hat, and they didn't refute it.
Now, the failure window might be quite small, but I have seen it happen
myself, and have heard it from
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
features in minor releases (and thereby introducing all the
attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux feature
until it's been through a major version (e.g.
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 10:46, Josh Berkus wrote:
Jeff,
[snip]
The other advantage (which I hinted to above) with raw disks is being able
to optimize queries to take advantage of it. Informix is multithreaded
and it will spawn off multiple readers to do say, a seq scan (and merge
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff) writes:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Christopher Browne wrote:
Are you _certain_ that's still true? Have you a metric that shows
Informix being 10x faster on a modern system? That would be quite
surprising...
We were forced (for budget reason) to switch from raw disk to
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
scott.marlowe wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:40:20AM -0700, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
Redhat puts ext3 on by default. Consider switching to a non-journaling FS
(ext2?) with the partition
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 06:59:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Uh, the ext2 developers say it isn't 100% reliable --- at least that is
that was told. I don't know any personally, but I mentioned it while I
was visiting Red Hat, and they didn't refute it.
IMHO, if we're going to say don't use
On 08/08/2003 11:28 mixo wrote:
I have just installed redhat linux 9 which ships with Pg
7.3.2. Pg has to be setup so that data inserts (blobs) should
be able to handle at least 8M at a time. The machine has
two P III 933MHz CPU's, 1.128G RAM (512M*2 + 128M), and
a 36 Gig hd with 1 Gig swap and 3
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:50, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major
features in minor releases (and thereby introducing all the
attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux feature
until it's been through a major version
Agreed.. WAL cannot recover something when WAL no longer exists due to a
filesystem corruption.
It is true that ext2 isn't good because the file system may not recover,
but BSD UFS isn't a journalled file system, but does guarantee file
system recovery after a crash --- it is especially
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 03:34:44PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
It is true that ext2 isn't good because the file system may not recover,
but BSD UFS isn't a journalled file system, but does guarantee file
system recovery after a crash --- it is especially good using soft
updates.
Sorry. I
On 8 Aug 2003 at 12:28, mixo wrote:
I have just installed redhat linux 9 which ships with Pg
7.3.2. Pg has to be setup so that data inserts (blobs) should
be able to handle at least 8M at a time. The machine has
two P III 933MHz CPU's, 1.128G RAM (512M*2 + 128M), and
a 36 Gig hd with 1 Gig
25 matches
Mail list logo
