On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Carlos Moreno wrote:
Another really handy way to gauge memory speed on Linux, if there are
similar kernels installed on each system like your case, is to use
"hdparm -T".
Great tip! I was familiar with the -T switch, but was not clear on the
notion that the figure tells y
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Simon Waters wrote:
One of our servers is fairly pressed for memory (some of the time). Is there
any way to measure the amount of churn in the shared_buffers, as a way of
demonstrating that more is needed (or at this moment more would help)?
If you wander to http://www.wes
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I guess my logical next step is what was suggested by Scott --- install
>> 8.2.4 and repeat the same tests with this one; that should give me
>> interesting information.
>>
>
> I'd suggest
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess my logical next step is what was suggested by Scott --- install
> 8.2.4 and repeat the same tests with this one; that should give me
> interesting information.
I'd suggest updating to the latest 8.2.x update as we
Thanks Greg and others for your replies,
> This is really something to watch out for. One quick thing first
> though: what frequency does the CPU on the new server show when you
> look at /proc/cpuinfo? If you see "cpu MHz: 1000.00"
It was like that in the initial setup --- I just disabled t
On Monday 13 October 2008 15:19:07 Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > shared_buffers = 24MB
> > max_fsm_pages = 153600
>
> Well, 24MB is pretty small. See if you can increase your system's
> shared memory and postgresql's shared_buffers to somewhere around 256M
> to 512M. It likely won't make a big diff
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a time when Microsoft was trying to cast IIS as faster than
> Apache, so they released a benchmark showing IIS being twice as fast
> as apache at delivering static pages. Let's say it was 10mS for
> apache and 2
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Mikkel Høgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, my benchmarks might have been a bit naïve.
> When it comes to hardware, my webserver is a SunFire X2100 with an Opteron
> 1210 Dual Core and 4 GB DDR2 RAM, running 64-bit Ubuntu Linux Server 8.04
> LTS.
>
> When it
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Mikkel Høgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, if anyone has any tips, input, etc. on how best to configure
> PostgreSQL for Drupal, or can find a way to poke holes in my analysis, I
> would love to hear your insights :)
It'd be more accurate to configure
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Mikkel H?gh wrote:
Well, in that benchmark, what you say is only true for the Niagara
processors. On the Opteron page, MySQL performance only drops slightly as
concurrency passes 50.
That's partly because the upper limit on the graph only goes to 100
concurrent processes
Well, in that benchmark, what you say is only true for the Niagara
processors. On the Opteron page, MySQL performance only drops slightly
as concurrency passes 50.
MySQL might have a problem with Niagara, but it doesn't seem like it
has the severe concurrency vulnerability you speak of.
T
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
It may well be that in a more realistic testing that mysql keeps up
through 5 or 10 client connections then collapses at 40 or 50, while
pgsql keeps climbing in performance.
One of the best pro-PostgreSQL comparisons showing this behavior is at
http:
12 matches
Mail list logo
