[GENERAL] Postres.exe Processes Hang
Hi, I am using the npgsql postgres data adaptor in a C# ASP.NET application. Each time the site establishes a new connection to the database a postgres.exe process is started. For some reason this process is not removed when the connection is closed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kim Kim Robinson*Geomatics Consultant B. Geom (Hons) P Please consider the environment before printing my email This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information, and are intended solely for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify Hydro Tasmania immediately via mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unless otherwise specified, any personal views and opinions expressed herein are purely those of the author and do not represent the views of Hydro Tasmania.
Re: [GENERAL] Postres.exe Processes Hang
Kim Robinson wrote: Hi, I am using the npgsql postgres data adaptor in a C# ASP.NET application. Each time the site establishes a new connection to the database a postgres.exe process is started. For some reason this process is not removed when the connection is closed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Are you by any chance using some connection pooling that keeps it alive? I don't remember what the default is in npgsql, but a lot of frameworks have connection pooling enabled by default. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Experiences with BLOB + PostgreSQL
On 2008-08-14 20:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to ask you about some experience in managing huge databases which store mostly binary files. Do you mean BYTEA or large objects? Both have pros and cons. We're developing a system which is likely to grow up to terabytes in some years and I'd like to hear something from people who really administrate these kinds of databases. I do not really administrate this kind of database, but I see one serious problem - a major version upgrade would be very hard. A filesystem storage with metadata stored in a database would be much better. Pozdrawiam Tometzky -- Best of prhn - najzabawniejsze teksty polskiego UseNet-u http://prhn.dnsalias.org/ Chaos zawsze pokonuje porządek, gdyż jest lepiej zorganizowany. [ Terry Pratchett ] -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] failed to re-find parent key in ...
Hello all, a few days ago I bumped into this: - # vacuumdb -f -z -a vacuumdb: vacuuming database postgres VACUUM vacuumdb: vacuuming database rtdata vacuumdb: vacuuming of database rtdata failed: ERROR: failed to re-find parent key in timeslots_strs_var_ts_key - We are using postgres 8.1.4 and I realise this has been fixed in 8.1.6 but... ...before updating all our servers I need to have an idea of the extent of the impact of this error. It seems to me that this error may cause the VACUUM, AUTOVACUUM and VACUUM FULL operations to fail partially or totally. Am I correct ? Or does this only have impact on VACUUM FULL ? We run many servers with a database application very heavily updated. In this scenario do I tell my boss that updating postgres would be nice or that we we _must_ update postgres ? What risks are we facing if we choose not to update postgresql ? thanks a lot for your advice. joao -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
-Original Message- From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can get very good throughput. If you're looking at read only / read mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat it. I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives. Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Re: pg_restore fails on Windows
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Of course the larger issue is why it's failing --- 150MB doesn't seem
like that much for a modern machine. I suspect that PQerrorMessage()
would tell us something useful, but pg_restore isn't letting us see it.
I've applied a patch for the latter issue. But the only way we can find
out what's happening is if someone will build a Windows version from CVS
tip for the OP...
Attached is a pg_restore.exe off CVS tip today, which should include the
patch. Please try this one.
//Magnus
I tested the restore using the provided pg_restore.exe. The output is:
for --inserts mode:
---
pg_restore: connecting to database for restore
Password:
pg_restore: creating SCHEMA public
pg_restore: creating COMMENT SCHEMA public
pg_restore: creating TABLE hibtableattachmentxmldata
pg_restore: restoring data for table hibtableattachmentxmldata
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] Error from TOC entry 1731; 0 16429 TABLE DATA
hibtableattachmentxmldata postgres
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: could not send data to
server: No buffer space available (0x274
7/10055)
Command was: INSERT INTO hibtableattachmentxmldata VALUES ('',
'
F...
pg_restore: setting owner and privileges for SCHEMA public
pg_restore: setting owner and privileges for COMMENT SCHEMA public
pg_restore: setting owner and privileges for ACL public
pg_restore: setting owner and privileges for TABLE hibtableattachmentxmldata
WARNING: errors ignored on restore: 1
for COPY mode
pg_restore: connecting to database for restore
Password:
pg_restore: creating SCHEMA public
pg_restore: creating COMMENT SCHEMA public
pg_restore: creating TABLE hibtableattachmentxmldata
pg_restore: restoring data for table hibtableattachmentxmldata
pg_restore: [archiver (db)] error returned by PQputCopyData: could not send
data to server: No buffer space available (0
x2747/10055)
pg_restore: *** aborted because of error
The restore in the COPY mode was obviously aborted, whereas the --inserts
finished with warnings.
Note: the provided pg_restore.exe is not compiled with the support for
compressed dumps.
Regards,
Tomas
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Cluster Up-time.
Hello, Is there a table/view available from where I can check what time the cluster was started? Need this to calculate the uptime of the cluster. Or is there something else that I need to do in order to calculate this? Any help on this is appreciated. Cheers! Alexi Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [GENERAL] Changing between ORDER BY DESC and ORDER BY ASC
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:35 PM, William Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Is there an easy way to write one single query that can alternate between ASC and DESC orders? Ex: Take a look at this link http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg111788.html -- Regards, Sergey Konoplev
Re: [GENERAL] failed to re-find parent key in ...
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:09 AM, Joao Ferreira gmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What risks are we facing if we choose not to update postgresql ? http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning -- Regards, Richard Broersma Jr. Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG) http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Regression failing on build - ERROR: could not access file $libdir/plpgsql: No such file or directory
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 16:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Reid Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would plpgsql.so get built with.. ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql833 --without-readline --disable-shared Uh, no. That probably explains why regress.so didn't get built, either. regards, tom lane OK -- rebuilt without '--disable-shared', and === All 114 tests passed. === 1) Should the Docs note that '--disable-shared' will prevent the compile time regression checks from running 2) Should the compilation note to the user that '--disable-shared' will prevent compile time regression checks from running 3) should the error message output when regression fails for the above reason not be along the lines of ...snip... gmake[2]: stat:regress.so: There are too many levels of symbolic links to translate a path name. rm -f regress.so ln -s regress.so gmake[2]: stat:regress.so: There are too many levels of symbolic links to translate a path name. ...snip... 4) if '--disable-shared' is passed, should the user be notified that compile time regression checks will be skipped ( and then skip them ). -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Cluster Up-time.
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:53:32AM -0700, Alexi Gen wrote: Is there a table/view available from where I can check what time the cluster was started? Need this to calculate the uptime of the cluster. In PostgreSQL 8.1 and later you can run these queries to get the start time and uptime: SELECT pg_postmaster_start_time(); SELECT now() - pg_postmaster_start_time(); -- Michael Fuhr -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
Ow Mun Heng wrote: -Original Message- From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you throw enough drives on a quality RAID controller at it you can get very good throughput. If you're looking at read only / read mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat it. I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives. Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation? I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance. If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data will happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail the system can keep going.Giving you time to shut down and replace the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace. I just went through failed drives on Email server a few months ago. This a case where i told the client the server is 5 years old time to replace it about 3 months latter i get a call the server is really slow. It turned out 1 of the drives in the RAID 10 had failed. The client allowed me to order a new server at that point.
Re: [GENERAL] failed to re-find parent key in ...
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 4:09 AM, Joao Ferreira gmail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What risks are we facing if we choose not to update postgresql ? A _lot_ more risk than updating. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Re: pg_restore fails on Windows
=?us-ascii?Q?Tom=20Tom?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Magnus Hagander wrote: Attached is a pg_restore.exe off CVS tip today, which should include the patch. Please try this one. I tested the restore using the provided pg_restore.exe. The output is: pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: could not send data to server: No buffer space available (0x2747/10055) According to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/201213 this is an acknowledged bug that's been broken since Windows 95, so I suppose we should conclude that M$ is unwilling or incompetent to fix it. Possibly the best workaround is something like + #ifndef WIN32 sent = pqsecure_write(conn, ptr, len); + #else + /* Windows tends to fail on large sends, see KB 20213 */ + sent = pqsecure_write(conn, ptr, Min(len, 65536)); + #endif in pqSendSome(). The backend seems to not be subject to a similar problem because it's already filtering its output through a limited-size buffer. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Postres.exe Processes Hang
On 8/18/08, Magnus Hagander Hi, all! As Magnus said, this is caused by the fact Npgsql does connection pool by default. You can change that by passing pooling=false in your connection string. You can get more info at manual.npgsql.org I hope it helps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kim Robinson wrote: Hi, I am using the npgsql postgres data adaptor in a C# ASP.NET application. Each time the site establishes a new connection to the database a postgres.exe process is started. For some reason this process is not removed when the connection is closed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Are you by any chance using some connection pooling that keeps it alive? I don't remember what the default is in npgsql, but a lot of frameworks have connection pooling enabled by default. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. http://fxjr.blogspot.com http://www.npgsql.org -- Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. http://fxjr.blogspot.com http://www.npgsql.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] Fw: UUID vs Serial or BigSerial
All, From a performance standpoint what is the downside to using a UUID column? Our current database with 25 locations after 5 years is only about 2.5 gig. We do about 200,000 orders per year so we are not getting hit with a huge amount of data. Much of our data is static or once it has been processed it is static from that point forward. The only reason that I was thinking about using a UUID data type is that this is a commerical product and we are also looking to move into the ASP space. It is possible that we might have 2 companies merge and I thought that using the UUID would cause less hassles if we had to merge 2 databases. That being said the changes of that happening are pretty slim. I've got one DBA telling me that I should be using a UUID datatype for all of our tables. Best Regards, Michael Gould, Manager Information Technology All Coast Intermodal Services, Inc. First Coast Intermodal Services, Inc. First Coast Logistics Services, LLC. 904-226-0978 904-592-5250 fax
[GENERAL] on cascade delete performances, transaction and set constraints deferred
I've something like create table p ( pid int primary key -- other stuff ); create table s1 ( s1id int primary key, pid int references p (pid) on delete cascade -- other stuff ); begin; set constraints all deferred; delete from p; -- insert into p (pid) select * atable; -- insert into s1 (s1id, pid) select * anothertable; commit; s1 are proprieties of p (one 2 many). What I'd like to obtain is reload from scratch p and s1. I wonder if this is a good way. Actually if I defer constraints, delete shouldn't take place... but then I'll try to insert new records in s1 adding duplicates s1id. Uniqueness constraint can't be deferred so I'll have a problem. What happens is that when I delete all rows in p, it takes forever to delete rows in s1. I just ^C psql and it the error message told me it was executing a DELETE statement on s1. I thought that since constraint were deferred DELETE statements would be executed after inserts (in actual code inserts were not comented out). But is seems it's not happening what I expect. Surely I could just clean s1 manually. Since there won't be any where clause it should be faster and it is going to solve my uniqueness problem too... but that requires extra bookkeeping. s1 isn't the only related table I'm not sure what's really happening but why apparently the delete statements get executed before the 2 inserts even if constraints are deferred? Why does it take so long? 2x old Xeon, HT but not dual core, 3.2GHz, 4Gb RAM, SCSI RAID 5, ~600K records in p and s1 5min. What should be the correct way to do it without too much bookkeeping? thanks -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] on cascade delete performances, transaction and set constraints deferred
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure what's really happening but why apparently the delete statements get executed before the 2 inserts even if constraints are deferred? You didn't mark the FK constraints as deferrable --- I'm pretty sure the default is NOT DEFERRABLE. Why does it take so long? Indexes on the FK columns would probably help. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] on cascade delete performances, transaction and set constraints deferred
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:16:01 -0400 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not sure what's really happening but why apparently the delete statements get executed before the 2 inserts even if constraints are deferred? You didn't mark the FK constraints as deferrable --- I'm pretty sure the default is NOT DEFERRABLE. My fault. I don't know how did I succeeded to read that the default was DEFERRABLE while it is clearly stated it is not. I can't see a direct way to add DEFERRABLE to an already existing constraint. Is dropping and adding the only path? Why does it take so long? Indexes on the FK columns would probably help. There is one actually. I'll post another email with a more sensible subject to ask more advices on this, if google doesn't help me first. Thanks. -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] explain inside begin; commit;
this: begin; explain select * from catalog_items limit 5; commit; return this: -- Executing query: begin; explain select * from catalog_items limit 5; commit; Query result with 2 rows discarded. Query returned successfully with no result in 58 ms. I'm interested in explain inside a transaction because: 1) the query I'd like to explain depends on previous statements 2) it modify the DB and I'd like to keep a consistent state. If the following queries fail I'd like to roll it back. explain analyze doesn't make any difference in the output. I didn't find anything in the log. Any alternative approach? -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] explain inside begin; commit;
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this: begin; explain select * from catalog_items limit 5; commit; return this: -- Executing query: begin; explain select * from catalog_items limit 5; commit; Query result with 2 rows discarded. Query returned successfully with no result in 58 ms. don't do it in pgAdmin but in psql -- regards, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. (593) 87171157 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Changing between ORDER BY DESC and ORDER BY ASC
http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg111788.htmlprobably won't match an index, because ASC or DESC ordering depends NOT on the table's data, but on the function parameter. Unfortunately the planner does not recognize the following case: CREATE TABLE public.prime ( num NUMERIC NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT prime_pkey PRIMARY KEY(num) ) WITH OIDS; CREATE INDEX prime_idx ON public.prime USING btree ((CASE WHEN true THEN num ELSE (- num) END)); CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.prime_test (a boolean) RETURNS SETOF integer AS $body$ DECLARE rec RECORD; BEGIN FOR rec IN select * from prime order by case when a then num else -num end limit 20 LOOP RETURN NEXT rec.num; END LOOP; END; $body$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE CALLED ON NULL INPUT SECURITY INVOKER; EXPLAIN ANALYZE select * from prime_test(true); -- hundreds of seconds - so the index is not used Seems the planner does not understand that a variable is constant true within the query and does not use prime_idx index (in spite of prime_idx is defined dummyly as CASE WHEN true THEN ... ELSE ... END). William, you may try to use EXECUTE instruction with customly built query with ASC or DESC inserted. On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Sergey Konoplev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:35 PM, William Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Is there an easy way to write one single query that can alternate between ASC and DESC orders? Ex: Take a look at this link http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg111788.html -- Regards, Sergey Konoplev
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:01 -0400, justin wrote: Ow Mun Heng wrote: -Original Message- From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're looking at read only / read mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat it. I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives. Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation? I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance. If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data will happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail the system can keep going.Giving you time to shut down and replace the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace. I'm looking for purely read-only performance and since I didn't have the bandwidth to do extensive testing, I didn't know whether a RAID1 or a Raid 0 will do the better job. In the end, I decided to go with RAID 0 and now, I'm thinking if RAID1 will do a better job. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Postres.exe Processes Hang
Great thanks all. Can you give me any indication of the performance implications of setting pooling=false? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francisco Figueiredo Jr. Sent: Tuesday, 19 August 2008 3:48 AM To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Kim Robinson; pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postres.exe Processes Hang On 8/18/08, Magnus Hagander Hi, all! As Magnus said, this is caused by the fact Npgsql does connection pool by default. You can change that by passing pooling=false in your connection string. You can get more info at manual.npgsql.org I hope it helps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kim Robinson wrote: Hi, I am using the npgsql postgres data adaptor in a C# ASP.NET application. Each time the site establishes a new connection to the database a postgres.exe process is started. For some reason this process is not removed when the connection is closed. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Are you by any chance using some connection pooling that keeps it alive? I don't remember what the default is in npgsql, but a lot of frameworks have connection pooling enabled by default. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. http://fxjr.blogspot.com http://www.npgsql.org -- Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. http://fxjr.blogspot.com http://www.npgsql.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Postres.exe Processes Hang
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Kim Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great thanks all. Can you give me any indication of the performance implications of setting pooling=false? Yeap. All the time you would need to connect to postgresql you will have the overhead of tcp connection establishment as well as the overhead of postgresql authentication. I don't know how much this is in time, but you can give it a try with some tests which opens a connection, do a simple query like select version() and close it. I think you could see something like 2 or 3 times slower than with the pool enabled. -- Regards, Francisco Figueiredo Jr. http://fxjr.blogspot.com http://www.npgsql.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] What's size of your PostgreSQL Database?
I have a db (tables with up to 5,000,000 records, up to 70 columns x 1,500,000 records, around 50Gb of disk space for the database (incl data, indexes, etc) Most records have PostGIS geometry columns, which work very well. For read performance this is on a (2 yr old) Linux box with 2x software RAID 0 (striped) WD 10,000RPM Raptor drives. FWIW bonnie gives reads at about 150Mb/sec from the filesystem. We have been more than happy with performance. though the 4Gb of RAM helps For data security, pg_dump backs it up every second day onto another 250Gb drive on the box, this is copied over the LAN to another server which is backed up to tape every day. It works for us :-) Cheers, Brent Wood Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/19/08 4:00 PM On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 11:01 -0400, justin wrote: Ow Mun Heng wrote: -Original Message- From: Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you're looking at read only / read mostly, then RAID5 or 6 might be a better choice than RAID-10. But RAID 10 is my default choice unless testing shows RAID-5/6 can beat it. I'm loading my slave server with RAID-0 based on 3 IDE 7200 Drives. Is this worst off than a RAID 5 implementation? I see no problem using Raid-0 on a purely read only database where there is a copy of the data somewhere else. RAID 0 gives performance. If one of the 3 drives dies it takes the server down and lost of data will happen. The idea behind RAID 1/5/6/10 is if a drive does fail the system can keep going.Giving you time to shut down and replace the bad disk or if you have hot swappable just pull and replace. I'm looking for purely read-only performance and since I didn't have the bandwidth to do extensive testing, I didn't know whether a RAID1 or a Raid 0 will do the better job. In the end, I decided to go with RAID 0 and now, I'm thinking if RAID1 will do a better job. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
