Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Wojciech Puchar
use systat Using 'systat -iostat' it shows mostly idle with 25-70 MB/s on the aacd0 array. Most of time above 50. Thanks for the help! -- Robert 70MB/s can't be "mostly idle". or you meant CPU mostly idle. changing to RAID-not5 will help. seeking why disk traffic is so high - will help eve

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Jerry McAllister
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:17:09PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >After reading tuning, it suggests the SWAP should be double RAM. > >According to dmesg... > > installing database on RAID-5 or asking if to add swap (when almost none > is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? That is not

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 22:49 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? > > > > That was my whole point of showing you the low usage. I take that as a > > yes, RAID 1+0 would provide a dramatic difference in speed, thanks! > > the only adventage of RAID-5 is l

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 16:34 -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Robert Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I don't know anything about amavisd's usage of databases. If it's doing > a lot of small writes, then it's likely that getting off RAID 5 will make > a marked difference. I believe this

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Wojciech Puchar
is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? That was my whole point of showing you the low usage. I take that as a yes, RAID 1+0 would provide a dramatic difference in speed, thanks! the only adventage of RAID-5 is less "wasted" space than RAID-1. one and the only adventage. write performa

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Robert Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 22:19 +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > > Robert Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > > real memory = 3220635648 (3071 MB) > > > avail memory = 3150565376 (3004 MB) > > > > > > we have 3GB of RAM available with actually 4GB physical

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 22:19 +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > Robert Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > real memory = 3220635648 (3071 MB) > > avail memory = 3150565376 (3004 MB) > > > > we have 3GB of RAM available with actually 4GB physical RAM installed? > > If you're using a 32-bit (i386) kernel you need PA

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Bill Moran
In response to Robert Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 15:53 -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > > In response to Robert Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I also have assumed in the past that db performance could be better if I > &

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 22:17 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > After reading tuning, it suggests the SWAP should be double RAM. > > According to dmesg... > > installing database on RAID-5 or asking if to add swap (when almost none > is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? That was my whole

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Wojciech Puchar
After reading tuning, it suggests the SWAP should be double RAM. According to dmesg... installing database on RAID-5 or asking if to add swap (when almost none is used)? what is more stupid? whould we vote? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing l

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Ivan Voras
Robert Fitzpatrick wrote: real memory = 3220635648 (3071 MB) avail memory = 3150565376 (3004 MB) we have 3GB of RAM available with actually 4GB physical RAM installed? If you're using a 32-bit (i386) kernel you need PAE. Or switch to 64-bit (amd64). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP di

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Fitzpatrick
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 15:53 -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Robert Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I also have assumed in the past that db performance could be better if I > > get off the system RAID-5 and put it on 1+0? The system has 4 SATA > >

Re: db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Bill Moran
158 sleeping, 21 waiting > CPU states: 2.6% user, 0.0% nice, 1.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 96.4% idle > Mem: 446M Active, 1646M Inact, 236M Wired, 138M Cache, 112M Buf, 30M Free > Swap: 2048M Total, 164K Used, 2048M Free Adding swap is unlikely to help you, as you're not really using mu

db performance

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Fitzpatrick
wap: 2048M Total, 164K Used, 2048M Free I also have assumed in the past that db performance could be better if I get off the system RAID-5 and put it on 1+0? The system has 4 SATA drives. All servers running FreeBSD 6.2 and latest ports of postfix+amavisd-maia +SA+ClamAV. Thanks for any input.