I wonder if I would like to increase more RAM from 4 Gb. to 6 Gb. [which I hope
to increase more performance ] and I now I used RH 9 and Pgsql 7.3.2 ON DUAL
Xeon 3.0 server thay has the limtation of 4 Gb. ram, I should use which OS
between FC 2-3 or redhat EL 3 [which was claimed to support 64 Gb.
Matt,
> I had one comment on the pg_autovacuum section. Near the bottom it
> lists some of it's limitations, and I want to clarify the 1st one: "Does
> not reset the transaction counter". I assume this is talking about the
> xid wraparound problem? If so, then that bullet can be removed.
> pg_a
People:
> All of these recent threads about fastest hardware and "who's better than
> who" has inspired me to create a new website:
>
> http://www.dbtuning.org
Well, time to plug my web site, too, I guess:
http://www.powerpostgresql.com
I've got a configuration primer up there, and the 8.0 Annot
All of these recent threads about fastest hardware and "who's better than
who" has inspired me to create a new website:
http://www.dbtuning.org
I snipped a few bits from recent posts to get some pages started - hope
the innocent don't mind. It's a bit postgres biased at the moment, since
well,
Dave Cramer wrote:
I understand that but I have seen VM's crash.
This does bring up another point. Since postgresql is not threaded a
.NET pl would require a separate VM for each connection (unless you can
share the vm ?). One of the java pl's (pl-j) for postgres has dealt
with this issue.
For
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Unless something has changed though, you can't run raid 10
with linux software raid
Hm, why not? What stops you from making two RAID-0 devices and mirroring
those? (Or the other way round, I can nev
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> heh, our apps do tend to be CPU bound. Generally, I think the extra CPU
> horsepower is worth the investment until you get to the really high end
> cpus.
I find that while most applications I work with shouldn't be cpu intensive
they do seem end up
Jim wrote: you'd be hard-pressed to find too many real-world examples where
you could do
something with a PostgreSQL procedural language that you couldn't do
with PL/SQL.
Rick mumbled: You can't get it for nothing! %)
while you weren't looking, Greg Stark wrote:
> Back in the day, we used to have problems with our 1U dual pentiums. We
> attributed it to heat accelerating failure. I would fear four opterons in 1U
> would be damned hard to cool effectively, no?
Opterons actually run pretty coolly, comparatively.
> $4000 is not going to get you much disk - If you buy components from
> the cheapest source I know (newegg.com) you end up around $5k with
> 14x36gig Raptor SATA drives and a 4U chasis with a 14xSATA built in
> back plane packing 2x9500S AMCC Escalade RAID cards, which are
> supported in Linux, 4G
$4000 is not going to get you much disk - If you buy components from
the cheapest source I know (newegg.com) you end up around $5k with
14x36gig Raptor SATA drives and a 4U chasis with a 14xSATA built in
back plane packing 2x9500S AMCC Escalade RAID cards, which are
supported in Linux, 4Gig RAM and
Rosser Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Try also the Appro 1U 4-way Opteron server, at:
> http://www.appro.com/product/server_1142h.asp
Back in the day, we used to have problems with our 1U dual pentiums. We
attributed it to heat accelerating failure. I would fear four opterons in 1U
would b
Connect to an external data system using a socket and propagate data
changes using a trigger... I've had to do this, and it sucks to be
stuck in Oracle!
Alex Turner
NetEconomist
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:29:52 -0600, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:46:01PM -0500
while you weren't looking, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> 2 way or 4 way Opteron depending on needs (looking on a price for 4-way?
> Go here: http://www.swt.com/qo3.html).
Try also the Appro 1U 4-way Opteron server, at:
http://www.appro.com/product/server_1142h.asp
I specced a 4-way 842 (1.6 GHz: litt
After a long battle with technology, "Pete de Zwart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, an
earthling, wrote:
> Greetings to one and all,
>
> I've been trying to find some information on selecting an optimal
> filesystem setup for a volume that will only contain a PostgreSQL Database
> Cluster under Linux.
I understand that but I have seen VM's crash.
This does bring up another point. Since postgresql is not threaded a
.NET pl would require a separate VM for each connection (unless you can
share the vm ?). One of the java pl's (pl-j) for postgres has dealt
with this issue.
For a hundred connectio
> Subject: [PERFORM] which dual-CPU hardware/OS is fastest for
PostgreSQL?
>
> I'm sorry if there's a URL out there answering this, but I couldn't
find
> it.
>
> For those of us that need the best performance possible out of a
> dedicated dual-CPU PostgreSQL server, what is recommended?
>
> AMD6
On 11 Jan 2005 04:25:04 GMT
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Xeon sux pretty bad...
>
> > Linux or FreeBSD or _?_
>
> The killer question won't be of what OS is "faster," but rather of
> what OS better supports the fastest hardware you can get your hands
> on.
Well, if multiple
...and on Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake used the
keyboard:
>
> >
> >RAID controllers tend to use i960 or StrongARM CPUs that run at speeds
> >that _aren't_ all that impressive. With software RAID, you can take
> >advantage of the _enormous_ increases in the speed of the
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Unless something has changed though, you can't run raid 10
> with linux software raid
Hm, why not? What stops you from making two RAID-0 devices and mirroring
those? (Or the other way round, I can never remember :-) )
/* Steinar *
20 matches
Mail list logo
