Re: [PERFORM] Postgres 7.3.4 + Slackware 9.1

2003-11-01 Thread Jeremy M. Guthrie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I run Slackware 9.1 and Postgres 7.3.4.  I compiled Postgres from source and I 
have actually had fewer problems with it then on Redhat 8.

On Friday 31 October 2003 02:55 pm, PostgreSQL wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> Do anyone have experience installing Postgres 7.3.4 on Slackware 9.1?
>
> Do exist any trouble, bug, problem... or is a good MIX?
>
> I want to "leave" RedHat (9) because is not "free" anymore and i don't
> want to use fedora BETA TEST versions.
>
> Any suggestion?
>
> THANKS ALL.
>
>
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

- -- 
Jeremy M. Guthrie
Systems Engineer
Berbee
5520 Research Park Dr.
Madison, WI  53711
Phone:  608-298-1061

Berbee...Decade 1.  1993-2003
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/otZeqtjaBHGZBeURArn+AJ4leCrBQIm2fj01davX4n9FcMs2lgCeLisL
C0+9VnkJn7EFelWLm4RGrRA=
=umPm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [PERFORM] Pg+Linux swap use

2003-11-01 Thread William Yu
Rob Sell wrote:
Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this performance hit
when using HT, I have what should all rights be a pretty fast server, dual
2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig of memory. And it is only 50% as
fast as my old server which was a dual AMD MP 1400's with a 45gb raid 5
array and 1gb of ram. I have read everything I could find on Pg performance
tweaked all the variables that were suggested and nothing. Which is why I
subscribed to this list, just been lurking so far but this caught my eye. 
Not to get into a big Intel vs AMD argument but 50% sounds about right. 
Let's first assume that the QS rating for the MP1400 is relatively 
accurate and convert that to a 1.4GHz Xeon. 2.4/1.4 = +71%. Since 
processor performance does not increase linearly with clockspeed, 50% is 
in line with expectations. Then you throw in the fact that (1) QS 
ratings for slower AMD chips are understated (but overstated for the 
fastest chips), (2) AMD uses a point-to-point CPU/memory interface (much 
better for SMP) versus the P4/Xeon's shared bus, (3) Athlon architecture 
is more suited for DB work compared to the P4, I'd say you're lucky to 
see 50% more performance from a Xeon 2.4.

As for HT, I've seen quite a few benchmarks where HT hurts performance. 
The problem is it's not only app and workload specific but also system 
and usage specific. As it involves the internal rescheduling of 
processes, adding more simultaneous processes could help to a point and 
then start hurting or vice-versa.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
  http://archives.postgresql.org