On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Niels Kristian Schjødt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm kind of a noob when it comes to setting up RAID controllers and tweaking
> them so I need some advice here.
>
> I'm just about to setup my newly rented DELL R720 12. gen server. It's
> running a single Intel Xeon E5-262
Alistair Bayley writes:
> On 18 February 2014 14:40, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I notice though that the cost estimate for the seqscan plan isn't all that
>> much lower than that for the indexscan plan. Probably lowering
>> random_page_cost a bit would change the planner's mind. We have no
>> informati
On 18 February 2014 14:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> I notice though that the cost estimate for the seqscan plan isn't all that
> much lower than that for the indexscan plan. Probably lowering
> random_page_cost a bit would change the planner's mind. We have no
> information about total size of database
Jeff Janes writes:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alistair Bayley wrote:
>> I want to understand why the optimiser is choosing the plan with
>> sequential table scans, rather than the plan with index scans.
> The planner clamps the estimated number of rows from an index scan at 1
> row, even
Hi,
I don't have PERC H710 raid controller, but I think he would like to know raid
striping/chunk size or read/write cache ratio in writeback-cache setting is the
best. I'd like to know it, too:)
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
(2014/02/18 0:54), Tomas Vondra wrot
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Alistair Bayley wrote:
> I have postgresql 8.4.15 on Ubuntu 10.04 and this query:
>
> SELECT MAX(probeTable.PROBE_ALARM_EVENT_ID) AS MAX_EVENT_ID
> FROM ALARM_EVENT eventTable
> INNER JOIN ALARM_EVENT_PROBE probeTable
>ON eventTable.ALARM_EVENT_
I am running PG 9.2.4 and I am trying to figure out why my database size
shows one value, but the sum of my total relation sizes is so much less.
Basically, I'm told my database is 188MB, but the sum of my total
relation sizes adds up to just 8.7MB, which is 1/20th of the reported
total. Wher
I have postgresql 8.4.15 on Ubuntu 10.04 and this query:
SELECT MAX(probeTable.PROBE_ALARM_EVENT_ID) AS MAX_EVENT_ID
FROM ALARM_EVENT eventTable
INNER JOIN ALARM_EVENT_PROBE probeTable
ON eventTable.ALARM_EVENT_ID = probeTable.ALARM_EVENT_ID
WHERE probeTable.PROBE_ID = 2
wh
The thing is, it's difficult to transfer these experiences without clear
idea of the workloads.
For example I wouldn't say 200 updates / second is a write-heavy workload.
A single 15k drive should handle that just fine, assuming the data fit
into RAM (which seems to be the case, but maybe I got th
On 17 Únor 2014, 16:03, Niels Kristian Schjødt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m kind of a noob when it comes to setting up RAID controllers and
> tweaking them so I need some advice here.
>
> I’m just about to setup my newly rented DELL R720 12. gen server. It’s
> running a single Intel Xeon E5-2620 v.2 proces
Hi,
I configured a similar architecture some months ago and this is the best
choice after some pgbench and Bonnie++ tests.
Server: DELL R720d
CPU: dual Xeon 8-core
RAM: 32GB ECC
Controller PERC H710
Disks:
2xSSD (MLC) Raid1 for Operating System (CentOS 6.4)
4xSSD (SLC) Raid10 for WAL archive and a
Hi,
I’m kind of a noob when it comes to setting up RAID controllers and tweaking
them so I need some advice here.
I’m just about to setup my newly rented DELL R720 12. gen server. It’s running
a single Intel Xeon E5-2620 v.2 processor and 64GB ECC ram. I have installed 8
300GB SSDs in it. It h
12 matches
Mail list logo
