Bruce Momjian wrote:
The definitive guide to servers vs. desktop drives is:
http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/whitepaper/D2c_More_than_Interface_ATA_vs_SCSI_042003.pdf
Yeah - very nice paper, well worth a read (in spite of the fact that it
is also Seagate propaganda, supporting th
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Mark Lewis wrote:
>
> >
> > The naive approach works on IDE drives because they don't (usually)
> > honor the request to write the data immediately, so it can fill its
> > write cache up with several megabytes of data and write it out to the
> > disk at its leisure.
> >
>
try to dump-restore your 'slow' database,
this might help if your db or filesystem gets too fragmented.
On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:31:08 -0400
"mcelroy, tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I have identical postgres installations running on identical machines. Dual
> Core AMD Optero
Hi,
Is there a command to Insert a record If It does not exists and a update if
It exists?
I do not want to do a select before a insert or update.
I mean the postgres should test if a record exist before insert and if It
exist then the postgres must do an update instead an insert.
Thanks,
Tom Lane wrote:
As per PFC's comment, if connections/sec is a bottleneck for you then
the
answer is to use persistent connections. Launching a new backend
is a fairly
heavyweight operation in Postgres.
In which case maybe pgpool could help in this respect?
http://pgpool.projects.postgresql
Tom Lane wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get
is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New con/sec.
As per PFC's comment, if connections/sec is a bottleneck for you then
the answer is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get
> is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New con/sec.
As per PFC's comment, if connections/sec is a bottleneck for you then
the answer is to use persistent connections. Launching
I cannot scale beyond that value and the funny thing, is that none of the
servers is swapping, or heavy loaded, neither postgres nor apache are
refusing connexions.
Hearing a story like this (throughput hits a hard limit, but
hardware doesn't appear to be 100% utilized), I'd suspect
insuffi
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 11:38:10AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> What version of PostgreSQL? (8.1 is better than 8.0 is much better than 7.4.)
> 8.1.3 on RHEL 4
OK, that sounds good.
>> Have you remembered to turn HT off?
> no !! what is it ?
HT = Hyperthreading. It usually does more harm t
One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get
is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600 New con/sec.
NB : apache when stressed for a static page, i can handle more 16k new
con/sec
T
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
> One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
> I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result I can get
> is that my system can handl
Hello,
I am setting up a postgres server that will hold a critical event witin
the next few weeks.
It's national exam result (14 students)
the problem is that the first few hours there will be a huge traffic,
(last year 250K requests only the first hour)
I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - bipr
12 matches
Mail list logo
