On 26/08/14 06:47, Jeison Bedoya Delgado wrote:
hi, recently i change the hardware of my database 32 cores up to 64
cores and 128GB Ram, but the performance is the same. Perhaps i have to
change any parameter in the postgresql.conf?.
In addition to the points that others have made, even if yo
Changing to a higher rate CPU would be more helpful if you run less than 32
queries at a time.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jeison Bedoya Delgado <
> jeis...@audifarma.com.co> wrote:
>
>> hi, recently i change the hardware of my database 32 co
On Monday, August 25, 2014, Jeison Bedoya Delgado
wrote:
> hi, recently i change the hardware of my database 32 cores up to 64 cores
> and 128GB Ram, but the performance is the same. Perhaps i have to change
> any parameter in the postgresql.conf?.
>
PostgreSQL does not (yet) automatically par
hi, recently i change the hardware of my database 32 cores up to 64
cores and 128GB Ram, but the performance is the same. Perhaps i have to
change any parameter in the postgresql.conf?.
Thanks by your help
--
Atentamente,
JEISON BEDOYA DELGADO
.
--
NOTA VERDE:
No imprima este correo a men
>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Knight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We tried reducing the memory footprint of the postgres processes, via
> shared_buffers (from 3 on Linux to 3000 on Windows),
I would never go below 1. 2 to 3 is a goo
All,
I have been asked to move this thread to the performance list. Below is
the full discussion to this point.
Doug Knight
WSI Corp
Andover, MA
Forwarded Message
From: Doug Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Tuning Post
Hello,
What would be reasonable settings for quite heavily used
but not large database?
Dabatase is under 1G in size and fits into server cache (server
has 2GB of memeory). Two of most used tables are ~100k rows each
but they get up to 50inserts/updates/deletes per second.
How to tweak
> "RJ" == Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RJ> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:00, scott.marlowe wrote:
RJ> Sounds like my kinda card!
RJ> Is the cache battery-backed up?
yep
RJ> How much cache can you stuff in them?
as per dell, the max is 128Mb, which was a bummer.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:38, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:00, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:18, scott.ma
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:00, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:18, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > > > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:00, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:18, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 14:00, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:18, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > > > > > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:18, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > > > > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > GS> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:18, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > > > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > GS> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > GS> But you have to actu
On 29 Jul 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > GS> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > GS> But you have to actually test your setup in practice to see if it
> > GS> hurts. A big
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 08:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GS> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GS> But you have to actually test your setup in practice to see if it
> GS> hurts. A big data warehousing system will be faster under RAID
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:14, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GS> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> GS> But you have to actually test your setup in practice to see if it
> GS> hurts. A big data warehousing system will be faster under RAID
> "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GS> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GS> But you have to actually test your setup in practice to see if it
GS> hurts. A big data warehousing system will be faster under RAID5
GS> than under RAID1+0 because of the extra disks in the
G
Balasz,
> Since there seem to be a lot of different opinions regarding the various
> different RAID configurations I thought I'd post this link to the list:
> http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/raid/index.html
Yeah ... this is a really good article. Made me realize why "stripey
Since there seem to be a lot of different opinions regarding the various
different RAID configurations I thought I'd post this link to the list:
http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/perf/raid/index.html
This is the best resource for information on RAID and hard drive
performance I found
"Arjen van der Meijden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, reboting is not a problem with ext2, but crashing might be... And
> normally you don't plan a systemcrash ;)
> Ext3 and xfs handle that much better.
A journaling filesystem is good to use if you can set it to journal
metadata but not file
> Andrew McMillan wrote:
>
> The general heuristic is that RAID-5 is not the way to deal
> with databases. Now surely someone will disagree with me,
> but as I understand it RAID-5 has a bottleneck on a single
> disk for the
> (checksum) information. Bottleneck is not the word you want
> to h
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 00:53, Alexander Priem wrote:
> Wow, I never figured how many different RAID configurations one could think
> of :)
>
> After reading lots of material, forums and of course, this mailing-list, I
> think I am going for a RAID5 configuration of 6 disks (18Gb, 15.000 rpm
> eac
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 13:29, Greg Stark wrote:
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you are writing 4k out to a RAID5 of 10 disks, this is what happens:
> >
> > (assumiung 64k stipes...)
> > READ data stripe (64k read)
> > READ parity stripe (64k read)
> > make changes to data s
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you are writing 4k out to a RAID5 of 10 disks, this is what happens:
>
> (assumiung 64k stipes...)
> READ data stripe (64k read)
> READ parity stripe (64k read)
> make changes to data stripe
> XOR new data stripe with old parity stripe to get a ne
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Alexander Priem wrote:
> > Wow, I never figured how many different RAID configurations one could think
> > of :)
> >
> > After reading lots of material, forums and of course, this mailing-list, I
> > think I am
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 11:40:35 +0200,
Vincent van Leeuwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> About RAID types: the fastest RAID type by far is RAID-10. However, this will
> cost you a lot of useable diskspace, so it isn't for everyone. You need at
> least 4 disks for a RAID-10 array. RAID-5 is a n
> "AP" == Alexander Priem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AP> Hmmm. I keep changing my mind about this. My Db would be mostly
AP> 'selecting', but there would also be pretty much inserting and
AP> updating done. But most of the work would be selects. So would
AP> this config be OK?
I'm about to o
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:01, Alexander Priem wrote:
> OK, another change of plans :)
>
> ext2 seems to be a bad idea. So i'll stick with ext3. Better safe than
> sorry...
Don't forget noatime!
> About the RAID-config: Maybe RAID-10 with six disks is affordable after all.
> I would have to take t
;
To: "Alexander Priem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Vincent van Leeuwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Alexander Priem wrote:
> &g
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Alexander Priem wrote:
> Wow, I never figured how many different RAID configurations one could think
> of :)
>
> After reading lots of material, forums and of course, this mailing-list, I
> think I am going for a RAID5 configuration of 6 disks (18Gb, 15.
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 07:53, Alexander Priem wrote:
> Wow, I never figured how many different RAID configurations one could think
[snip]
> Also because of this battery backed cache controller, I will go for the ext2
> file system, mounted with 'noatime'. I will use a UPS, so I don't think I
> need
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:27:20PM +0200, Alexander Priem wrote:
> file system, mounted with 'noatime'. I will use a UPS, so I don't think I
> need the journaling of ext3. XFS is not natively supported by RedHat and I
Just in case you're still thinking, why do you suppose that only
power failures
Wow, I never figured how many different RAID configurations one could think
of :)
After reading lots of material, forums and of course, this mailing-list, I
think I am going for a RAID5 configuration of 6 disks (18Gb, 15.000 rpm
each), one of those six disks will be a 'hot spare'. I will just pu
en" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
> On 2003-07-22 09:04:42 +0200, Alexander Priem wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Vincent, You said that using RAID1, you don't have real re
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 04:33, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Hi Alexander ,
>
> On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
[snip]
> > I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
>
> No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between
> use
On 2003-07-22 09:04:42 +0200, Alexander Priem wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Vincent, You said that using RAID1, you don't have real redundancy. But
> RAID1 is mirroring, right? So if one of the two disks should fail, there
> should be no data lost, right?
>
Right. But the proposal was a single disk for W
Kind regards,
Alexander Priem.
- Original Message -
From: "Vincent van Leeuwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
> On 2003-07-21 09:06:10 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> &g
On 2003-07-21 09:06:10 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> > Hmmm. Seems to me that this setup would be better than one RAID5 with three
> > 36Gb disks, wouldn't you think so? With one RAID5 array, I would still have
> > the data and the WAL on one volume...
>
> Definitely. As I've said,
Alexander,
> Hmmm. Seems to me that this setup would be better than one RAID5 with three
> 36Gb disks, wouldn't you think so? With one RAID5 array, I would still have
> the data and the WAL on one volume...
Definitely. As I've said, my experience with RAID5 is that with less than 5
disks, it p
D]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
> > What would you guys think of not using RAID5 in that case, but just a
really
> > fast 15.000 rpm SCSI-320 disk?
>
>
> I'd say you must be able to tolerate losing all the data since your last
From: Alexander Priem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 7/21/2003 5:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
Thanks, i'll look further into these mount setting.
nk of not using RAID5 in that case, but just a really
fast 15.000 rpm SCSI-320 disk?
Kind regards,
Alexander.
- Original Message -
From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuni
On 21 Jul 2003 at 13:45, Alexander Priem wrote:
> So where can I set the noatime & data=writeback variables? They are not
> PostgreSQL settings, but rather Linux settings, right? Where can I find
> these?
These are typicaly set in /etc/fstab.conf. These are mount settings. man mount
for more det
ROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
> On 21 Jul 2003 at 18:09, Ang Chin Han wrote:
>
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
> >
> > >>I use ext3 filesystem
On 21 Jul 2003 at 19:27, Ang Chin Han wrote:
> [1] That is, AFAIK, from our testing. Please, please correct me if I'm
> wrong: has anyone found that different filesystems produces wildly
> different performance for postgresql, FreeBSD's filesystems not included?
well, when postgresql starts spli
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
Good for you. You have time at hand to find out which one suits you best. Do
the testing before you have load that needs another FS..:-)
Kinda my point is that when we've more load, we'd be using RAID-0 over
RAID-5, or getting faster SCSI drives, or even turn fsync off
On 21 Jul 2003 at 18:09, Ang Chin Han wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
>
> >>I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
> >
> > No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between
> >
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it?
No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between
users as in what works best. You need to benchmark and decide.
Need? Ma
L PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL
> Hi Alexander ,
>
> On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
> > So the memory settings I specified are pretty much OK?
>
> As of now yes, You need to test with these setting
Hi Alexander ,
On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote:
> So the memory settings I specified are pretty much OK?
As of now yes, You need to test with these settings and make sure that they
perform as per your requirement. That tweaking will always be there...
> What would be good guideli
On 21 Jul 2003 at 10:31, Alexander Priem wrote:
> What I am thinking about is buying a server with the following specifications:
>
> * 1 or 2 Intel Xeon processors (2.4 GHz).
> * 2 Gigabytes of RAM (DDR/ECC).
> * Three 36Gb SCSI160 disks (10.000rpm) in a RAID-5 config, giving 72Gb storage
> space
Hi guys,
I am new to PostgreSQL and have done some
"extensive" research already. If you could give me some advice/confirmation, I
would be really grateful.
I am going to build a PostgreSQL database server
for a client. This database will contain many tables (over 100,
maybe more), with s
On Sunday 13 July 2003 10:23, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 09:49, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > On 4 Jul 2003 at 16:35, Michael Mattox wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > On a positive note, me and Josh are finishing a bare bone performance
> > article that would answer lot of your questions. I
54 matches
Mail list logo
