Hi, ----- Le 12 Déc 16, à 13:54, Shirly Radco <sra...@redhat.com> a écrit :
> Hi Baptiste, > Thank you very much for your reply. > I understand that you updated your DWH to collect every 60 seconds instead of > 20. > I'm the oVirt DWH maintainer and I would really appreciate if you can share > what > led you to this decision? > And some details on your setup. > Do you have it installed on the same machine as the engine or on a remote one? > Is your database remote or local? > What is the scale of you environment ? Number of hosts/vms... > This will may help us with the bug Roy mentioned. >From my mind, it was the ovirt_engine_history DB, i don't remember if there >was one or more tables that reported a lot of disk space usage. A full vacuum >corrected this size issue. For the bugzilla mentioned, i saw it and i applied the sampling suggestion to see if the DB grows more slowly. For our environment we have today (and growing) * 4 DC * 5 Clusters * 9 Storages domains (iscsi) * About 360 virtual disks in storage domains * 13 Hosts (growing) * About 250 VMs (growing) * The engine + DWH + DB server are all on the same server (hosted engine) * DB Size is about 3.2 GB (after the vacuum) * As all was on the same box, the engine setup via appliance was preferred and it was not possible to customize the size of the appliance at install/update, we wanted to keep the DB size as small as possible, but with some history. I saw that the engine appliance size will be customizable soon, so we will maybe extend the engine disk at update and keep a little bit more history or decrease the sampling interval again. Have a nice day. Regards. > Best regards, > Shirly Radco > BI Software Engineer > Red Hat Israel Ltd. > 34 Jerusalem Road > Building A, 4th floor > Ra'anana, Israel 4350109 > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Baptiste Agasse < > baptiste.aga...@lyra-network.com > wrote: >> ----- Le 8 Déc 16, à 15:18, Roy Golan < rgo...@redhat.com > a écrit : >>> Hi all, >>> Following the thread about vacuum tool [1] I would like to gather some >>> feedback >>> about your deployment's db vacuum status The info is completely anonymous >>> and >>> function running it is a read only reporting one and should have little or >>> no >>> effect on the db. >>> The result can be pretty verbose but again will not disclose sensitive info. >>> Anyway review it before pasting it. It should look something like that(a >>> snippet of one table): >>> INFO: vacuuming "pg_catalog.pg_ts_template" >>> INFO: index "pg_ts_template_tmplname_index" now contains 5 row versions in 2 >>> pages >>> DETAIL: 0 index row versions were removed. >>> 0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable. >>> CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec. >>> 1. sudo su - postgres -c "psql engine -c 'vacuum verbose'" &> >>> /tmp/vacuum.log >>> 2. review the /tmp/vacuum.log >>> 3. paste it to http://paste.fedoraproject.org/ and reply with the link here >>> [1] http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/2016-December/014484.html >>> Thanks, >>> Roy >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users@ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> http://paste.fedoraproject.org/501769/48120789/ >> But, we run a full vacuum about one month ago that have free about 8GB of >> space >> and we set DWH_SAMPLING=60 to decrease data size of DWH (install is ~ 1y and >> half old, updated from 3.5 to 3.6 to 4.0). >> Have a nice day. >> Regards. >> -- >> Baptiste >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users -- Baptiste
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.phx.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
