At 07:28 PM 1/10/2006, Mark Lewis wrote:
Ron,
A few days back you mentioned:
> Upgrade your kernel to at least 2.6.12
> There's a known issue with earlier versions of the 2.6.x kernel and
> 64b CPUs like the Opteron. See kernel.org for details.
>
I did some searching and couldn't find any ob
Ron,
A few days back you mentioned:
> Upgrade your kernel to at least 2.6.12
> There's a known issue with earlier versions of the 2.6.x kernel and
> 64b CPUs like the Opteron. See kernel.org for details.
>
I did some searching and couldn't find any obvious mention of this issue
(I gave up af
At 12:23 PM 1/9/2006, peter royal wrote:
On Jan 8, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Ron wrote:
Areca ARC-1220 8-port PCI-E controller
Make sure you have 1GB or 2GB of cache. Get the battery backup and
set the cache for write back rather than write through.
The card we've got doesn't have a SODIMM socket,
Peter,
On 1/9/06 12:59 PM, "peter royal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Overall, I got a 50% boost in the overall speed of my test suite by
> using XFS and the 16k read-ahead.
Yes, it all looks pretty good for your config, though it looks like you
might be adapter limited with the Areca - you sho
On Jan 9, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Peter,
On 1/9/06 9:23 AM, "peter royal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a 2-disk RAID0
Your 2-disk results look fine - what about your 8-disk results?
after some further research the 2-disk RAID0 numbers are not bad.
I have a single driv
Peter,
On 1/9/06 9:23 AM, "peter royal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a 2-disk RAID0
Your 2-disk results look fine - what about your 8-disk results?
Given that you want to run in production with RAID10, the most you should
expect is 2x the 2-disk results using all 8 of your disks. If yo
On Jan 8, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Have you tested the underlying filesystem for it's performance?
Run this:
time bash -c 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/my_file_system/bigfile bs=8k
count= && sync'
This is a 2-disk RAID0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /opt/alt-2]# time bash -c 'dd if=/dev/zero of=
On 1/9/06, Kelly Burkhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/8/06, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Among the other tricks having lots of RAM allows:
> > If some of your tables are Read Only or VERY rarely written to, you
> > can preload them at boot time and make them RAM resident using the
On 1/8/06, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Among the other tricks having lots of RAM allows:If some of your tables are Read Only or VERY rarely written to, youcan preload them at boot time and make them RAM resident using the/etc/tmpfs trick.
What is the /etc/tmpfs trick?
-K
I'll second all of Luke Lonergan's comments and add these.
You should be able to increase both "cold" and "warm" performance (as
well as data integrity. read below.) considerably.
Ron
At 05:59 PM 1/6/2006, peter royal wrote:
Howdy.
I'm running into scaling problems when testing with a 16gb
Peter,
On 1/6/06 2:59 PM, "peter royal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have experimented with having all 8 disks in a single RAID0 set, a
> single RAID10 set, and currently 4 RAID0 sets of 2 disks each. There
> hasn't been an appreciable difference in the overall performance of
> my test suite (w
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:47:55 -0500
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] help tuning queries on large database
peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
On 1/6/06, peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PostgreSQL 8.1.1
>
> shared_buffers = 1 # (It was higher, 50k, but didn't help any,
> so brought down to free ram for disk cache)
> work_mem = 8196
> random_page_cost = 3
> effective_cache_size = 25
I have played with both disk cache set
peter royal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, my question is, is there anything I can do to boost performance
> with what I've got, or am I in a position where the only 'fix' is
> more faster disks? I can't think of any schema/index changes that
> would help, since everything looks pretty opt
Howdy.
I'm running into scaling problems when testing with a 16gb (data
+indexes) database.
I can run a query, and it returns in a few seconds. If I run it
again, it returns in a few milliseconds. I realize this is because
during subsequent runs, the necessary disk pages have been cached b
15 matches
Mail list logo
