On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:04:44PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be that
xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why use ext2/3 at all
if xfs is faster for Postgres?
For the WAL, the filesystem is largely irrelevant.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WAL is on a RAID 0 drive along with the OS
Isn't that just as unsafe as having the whole lot on RAID0?
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-perform
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Enrico Sirola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Il giorno 17/mar/08, alle ore 20:38, Justin ha scritto:
>
> > it is a RAID 10 controller with 6 SAS 10K 73 gig drives.The
> > server is 3 weeks old now.
> >
> > it has 16 gigs of RAM
> > 2 quad core
Hi Justin,
Il giorno 17/mar/08, alle ore 20:38, Justin ha scritto:
it is a RAID 10 controller with 6 SAS 10K 73 gig drives.The
server is 3 weeks old now.
it has 16 gigs of RAM
2 quad core Xenon 1.88 Ghz processors
2 gig Ethernet cards. RAID controller perc 6/i with battery backup
512meg
Craig James wrote:
Justin wrote:
2000 tps ??? do you have fsync turned off ?
Dave
No its turned on.
Unless I'm seriously confused, something is wrong with these numbers.
That's the sort of performance you expect from a good-sized RAID 10
six-disk array. With a single 7200 rpm SATA di
Justin wrote:
2000 tps ??? do you have fsync turned off ?
Dave
No its turned on.
Unless I'm seriously confused, something is wrong with these numbers. That's
the sort of performance you expect from a good-sized RAID 10 six-disk array.
With a single 7200 rpm SATA disk and XFS, I get 640
2000 tps ??? do you have fsync turned off ?
Dave
No its turned on.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On 17-Mar-08, at 2:50 PM, Justin wrote:
Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why
use ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
Criag
Ext2 vs XFS on my setup there is difference in the perf
Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be
that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why use
ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
Criag
Ext2 vs XFS on my setup there is difference in the performance between
the two file systems but its
Well every thing worked right up to the point where i tried to mount the
file system
Warning: xfs_db: /dev/sdb1 contains a mounted file system
fatal error -- couldn't initialize XFS library.
think i'm missing something???
Craig Ringer wrote:
Justin wrote:
OK i'm showing my ignorance of
Justin wrote:
> OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure
> out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it
> installed.
There are two parts to the file system, really. One is the kernel driver
for the file system. This is almost certainly available
On 17/03/2008, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure
> out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it
> installed.
...
> any pointers would be nice. I 'm not going to reinstall the OS. Nor do
> i want to
Justin wrote:
OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure
out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it
installed.
Hm? Installed/not installed? You can select that when you are preparing
your partitions. If you run the automated partitioner ther
OK i'm showing my ignorance of linux. On Ubuntu i can't seem to figure
out if XFS file system is installed, if not installed getting it
installed.
I would like to see the difference between XFS and ext2 performance
numbers.
any pointers would be nice. I 'm not going to reinstall the OS.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to
> > be that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3. Is that not true? Why
> > use ext2/3 at all if xfs is
On 16-Mar-08, at 3:04 PM, Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was
any real big difference in performance as some people have noted
here is the test results
please note the WAL files
Craig James wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set
Dave Cramer wrote:
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here is
the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still
in e
On 16-Mar-08, at 2:19 AM, Justin wrote:
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any
real big difference in performance as some people have noted here
is the test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still
in ext3 file system f
I decided to reformat the raid 10 into ext2 to see if there was any real
big difference in performance as some people have noted here is the
test results
please note the WAL files are still on the raid 0 set which is still in
ext3 file system format. these test where run with the fsync as
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 05:27:09PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
I haven't found fdatasync to be significantly better in my tests on Linux
but I never went out of my way to try and quantify it. My understanding
is that some of the write barrier implementation details on ext3
filesystems make any sy
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Justin wrote:
I played with shared_buffer and never saw much of an improvement from
100 all the way up to 800 megs moved the checkpoints from 3 to 30 and
still never saw no movement in the numbers.
Increasing shared_buffers normally improves performan
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Justin wrote:
I played with shared_buffer and never saw much of an improvement from
100 all the way up to 800 megs moved the checkpoints from 3 to 30 and
still never saw no movement in the numbers.
Increasing shared_buffers normally improves performance as the size of the
Is this on a 64 bit or 32 bit machine? We had the problem with a 32
bit linux box (not sure what flavor) just a few months ago. I would
not create a filesystem on a partition of 2+TB
Yes this machine is 64bit
You do know that effective_cache_size is the size of the OS level
cache. i.e. i
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I chose to use ext3 on these partition
You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws
that mean I can't really use it properly. A 2TB file system size
limit (at least on the servers
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I chose to use ext3 on these partition
>
> You should really consider another file system. ext3 has
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I chose to use ext3 on
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Jesper Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I chose to use ext3 on these partition
> >
> > You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I chose to use ext3 on these partition
You should really consider another file system. ext3 has two flaws
that mean I can't really use it properly. A 2TB file system size
limit (at least on the servers I've tested) and it loc
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:53 PM, justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm ran pgbench from my laptop to the new server
>
> My laptop is dual core with 2 gigs of ram and 1 gig enthernet connection to
> server. so i don't think the network is going to be a problem in the test.
>
> When i look
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wal_s
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
wal_sync_method = open_sync
There was a bug report I haven't had a chance to investigate yet that
suggested some recent Linux versions have issues when using
open_sync. I'd suggest popping that back to the defau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:01:50 -0400 (EDT)
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:
>
> >> wal_sync_method = open_sync
>
> There was a bug report I haven't had a chance to investigate yet that
> suggested some r
Absolutely on the battery backup.
I did not load the linux drivers from dell, it works so i figured i was not
going to worry about it. This server is so oversized for its load its
unreal. I have always gone way overboard on server specs and making sure
its redundant.
The difference in our
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:
wal_sync_method = open_sync
There was a bug report I haven't had a chance to investigate yet that
suggested some recent Linux versions have issues when using open_sync.
I'd suggest popping that back to the default for now unless you have time
to reall
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:18 -0700
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Diffs from original configuration:
max_connections = 1000
shared_buffers = 400MB
work_mem = 256MB
max_fsm_pages = 100
max_fsm_relations = 5000
wa
Doug Knight wrote:
All,
I am in the process of specing out a purchase for our production
systems, and am looking at the Dell 2950s as well. I am very interested
to see where this thread goes, and what combinations work with different
application loading types. Our systems will have one pair of
Justin Graf wrote:
I recent just got a new server also from dell 2 weeks ago
went with more memory slower CPU, and smaller harddrives
have not run pgbench
Dell PE 2950 III
2 Quad Core 1.866 Ghz
16 gigs of ram.
8 hard drives 73Gig 10k RPM SAS
2 drives in Mirrored for OS, Binaries, and WAL
6 in a
I did not run into one install problem, I read a thread about people having
problems but the thread is over a year old now.
I used the 7.1 gutsy amd64 server version
I then installed gnome desktop because its not installed by default. "i'm a
windows admin i have to have my gui"
then instal
Justin,
This may be a bit out of context, but did you run into any troubles
getting your Perc6i RAID controller to work under Ubuntu 7.1? I've
heard there were issues with that.
Thanks,
Will
On Mar 13, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Justin Graf wrote:
I recent just got a new server also from dell 2
All,
I am in the process of specing out a purchase for our production
systems, and am looking at the Dell 2950s as well. I am very interested
to see where this thread goes, and what combinations work with different
application loading types. Our systems will have one pair of
heartbeat-controlled, d
I recent just got a new server also from dell 2 weeks ago
went with more memory slower CPU, and smaller harddrives
have not run pgbench
Dell PE 2950 III
2 Quad Core 1.866 Ghz
16 gigs of ram.
8 hard drives 73Gig 10k RPM SAS
2 drives in Mirrored for OS, Binaries, and WAL
6 in a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:18 -0700
Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diffs from original configuration:
>
> max_connections = 1000
> shared_buffers = 400MB
> work_mem = 256MB
> max_fsm_pages = 100
> max_fsm_relations = 5000
> wal_buffers
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Craig James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just received a new server and thought benchmarks would be interesting. I
> think this looks pretty good, but maybe there are some suggestions about the
> configuration file. This is a web app, a mix of read/write, wher
I just received a new server and thought benchmarks would be interesting. I think this
looks pretty good, but maybe there are some suggestions about the configuration file.
This is a web app, a mix of read/write, where writes tend to be "insert into ...
(select ...)" where the resulting inser
45 matches
Mail list logo
