Hi Andrew
On 11-Jun-07, at 11:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:09:42AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
and set them to anything remotely close to 128GB.
Well, we'd give 25% of it to postgres, and the rest to the OS.
Are you quite sure that PostgreSQL's management of the bu
Hi Andrew
On 11-Jun-07, at 11:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:09:42AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
and set them to anything remotely close to 128GB.
Well, we'd give 25% of it to postgres, and the rest to the OS.
Are you quite sure that PostgreSQL's management of the bu
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:09:42AM -0400, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >and set them to anything remotely close to 128GB.
>
> Well, we'd give 25% of it to postgres, and the rest to the OS.
Are you quite sure that PostgreSQL's management of the buffers is
efficient with such a large one? In the past, tha
On 10-Jun-07, at 11:11 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
Providing to what? PostgreSQL? The OS? My bet is that you'll run
into issues with how shared_bu
On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
Providing to what? PostgreSQL? The OS? My bet is that you'll run into
issues with how shared_buffers are managed if you actually try and
set
Actually this one is an opteron, so it looks like it's all good.
Dave
On 8-Jun-07, at 3:41 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
I had to look that up, web site says it is a 4-processor, dual-core
(so 8 cores) Intel Xeon system. It also says
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake írta:
>> Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
>>> Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
>>>
>>> Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
>>> that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
Dave Cramer wrote:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
I had to look that up, web site says it is a 4-processor, dual-core (so
8 cores) Intel Xeon system. It also says "Up to 64GB DDR II ECC
memory", so are you sure you can even get 128 GB RAM?
If you could, I'd expect diminishing ret
[EMAIL PROTECTED] írta:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:54:39PM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Joshua D. Drake írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
that w
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:54:39PM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake írta:
> >Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> >>Dave Cramer írta:
> >>>It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
> >>Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
> >>that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
> >He mean
Joshua D. Drake írta:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
He means redhat ES/AS 4 I assume.
J
I guessed that, hence the smiley.
But it's very unfor
On 8-Jun-07, at 2:10 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
He means redhat ES/AS 4 I assume.
Yes AS4
J
--
=
Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
He means redhat ES/AS 4 I assume.
J
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Su
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems
in the server bottleneck ?
the only way 128G of ram would be too much is if your total database
size (including indexes) is smaller then this.
now i
Dave Cramer írta:
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
Isn't that a bit old? I have a RedHat 4.2 somewhere
that was bundled with Applixware 3. :-)
--
--
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
---
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other systems
in the server bottleneck ?
the only way 128G of ram would be too much is if your total database size
(including indexes) is smaller then this.
now it may not gain you as much
It's an IBM x3850 using linux redhat 4.0
On 8-Jun-07, at 12:46 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
What CPU and OS are you considering?
--
Guy Rouillier
-
What is your expected data size and usage pattern? What are the other
components in the system?
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other systems in
the server bottleneck ?
Dave
---(end of broadcast)
Dave Cramer wrote:
Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
systems in the server bottleneck ?
What CPU and OS are you considering?
--
Guy Rouillier
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL pr
19 matches
Mail list logo
