On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, anth...@resolution.com wrote:
The nasty part of this problem is that the data needs to be "readily"
available for reports, and we cannot consolidate the data for reporting
purposes.
Just because you have to store the detailed data doesn't mean you can't
store a conslidated
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 17:16 -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:45 PM, wrote:
> > All:
> >
> > We have a web-application which is growing ... fast. We're currently
> > running on (1) quad-core Xeon 2.0Ghz with a RAID-1 setup, and 8GB of RAM.
> >
> > Our application collects a
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:45 PM, wrote:
> All:
>
> We have a web-application which is growing ... fast. We're currently
> running on (1) quad-core Xeon 2.0Ghz with a RAID-1 setup, and 8GB of RAM.
>
> Our application collects a lot of sensor data, which means that we have 1
> table which has about
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> More importantly when you run out of I/O bandwidth "bad things" tend to
> happen very quickly; the degradation of performance when you hit the IO wall
> is extreme to the point of being essentially a "zeropoint event."
Or as I like to put
>
> If you run Redhat, I would advise the most recent; i.e., Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux 5, since they do not add any new features and only correct errors.
> CentOS is the same as Red Hat, but you probably get better support from Red
> Hat if you need it -- though you pay for it.
>
The other thin
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote:
>>
>>> If my un-word wrapping is correct your running ~90% user cpu. Yikes. Could
>>> you get away with fewer disks for this kind of thing?
>>>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote:
>> If my un-word wrapping is correct your running ~90% user cpu. Yikes. Could
>> you get away with fewer disks for this kind of thing?
>
> Probably, but the same workload on a 6 disk RA
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Karl Denninger wrote:
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Karl Denninger:
Turn on softupdates. Fsck is deferred and the system comes up almost
instantly even with TB-sized partitions; the fsck then cleans up the
cruft.
Last time, I checked, there was a issue
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
Could the problem be the HW RAID card? There's ServerRAID 8k with 256MB
with write-back enabled. Could it be that its internal cache bec
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
>>
>>> Could the problem be the HW RAID card? There's ServerRAID 8k with 256MB
>>> with write-back enabled. Could it be that its internal cache becomes
>>> ful
Merlin Moncure wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Michal Vitecek wrote:
>
>> Could the problem be the HW RAID card? There's ServerRAID 8k with 256MB
>> with write-back enabled. Could it be that its internal cache becomes
>> full and all disk I/O operations are delayed until it writes all
>
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote:
> If my un-word wrapping is correct your running ~90% user cpu. Yikes. Could
> you get away with fewer disks for this kind of thing?
Probably, but the same workload on a 6 disk RAID-10 is 20% or so
IOWAIT. So somewhere between 6 and 12 dis
Axel Rau wrote:
>
> Am 05.10.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Karl Denninger:
>
>> Turn on softupdates. Fsck is deferred and the system comes up almost
>> instantly even with TB-sized partitions; the fsck then cleans up the
>> cruft.
> Last time, I checked, there was a issue with background-fsck.
> I will gi
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 03:16:27PM +0200, Shaul Dar wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>I am looking for a way to dump+restore a subset of a database (on another
>server), using both selection and projection of the source tables (for
>simplicity assume a single table).
>I understand that p
If my un-word wrapping is correct your running ~90% user cpu. Yikes. Could
you get away with fewer disks for this kind of thing?
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote:
> >
> >> But you should plan on partitioning to multipl
Hi everyone,
I am looking for a way to dump+restore a subset of a database (on another
server), using both selection and projection of the source tables (for
simplicity assume a single table).
I understand that pg_dump will not let me do this. One way I considered is
creating a view with the subse
>From: keshav upadhyaya
>Subject: [PERFORM] What is the role of #fsync and #synchronous_commit in
configuration file .
>
>Hi ,
>I want to imporve the performance for inserting of huge data in my table .
>I have only one idex in table .
>
>First question - i want to know the role played b
Am 05.10.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Karl Denninger:
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Karl Denninger:
gjournal, no. ZFS has potential stability issues - I am VERY
interested
in it when those are resolved. It looks good on a test platform
but I'm
unwilling to run it in productio
Hi ,
I want to imporve the performance for inserting of huge data in my table .
I have only one idex in table .
First question - i want to know the role played by
#fsync = onand
#synchronous_commit = on
They are commented by default in 8.4 .
When made like this :-
fsync = off
synchronou
19 matches
Mail list logo
