It depends what you want to do with your database.
Do you have many reads (select) or a lot of writes (update,insert) ?
You should use a hardware raid controller with battery backup write cache
(write cache should be greater than 256 MB).
.. heavy duty production server ?
How much memory do you
This one will be a hugely INSERT thing, very low on UPDATEs. The
INSERTS will have many TEXT fields as they are free form data. So the
database will grow very fast. Size will grow pretty fast too.
You should use a hardware raid controller with battery backup write cache
(write cache should be
The point people are trying to make to you is that the differences between
RAID controllers can be as big as that between RAID architectures in cases
like yours. Which controller you're using and how the cache is setup can
have a larger impact on INSERT performance than how many/what type of
Scenario 1, SATAII:
- Server: Asus RS120-E4/PA4 Dedicated Server
- CPU: Single -- Intel Quad Core Xeon Processor x3210 Processor 2.13Ghz
- RAM: 4Gb DDR2 Memory 667Mhz
- Hard disk: 4 x Seagate ES SATAII HardDrive 7200RPM 250Gb (Total 500Gb)
- Raid 10: 3Ware Raid 9650SE:
Hmm
SELECT * FROM gdp WHERE y1970 NOT NULL AND y1971 NOT NULL
AND y2005 NOT NULL
It sounds like a bad table design,
because i think you need an field f_year and value_of_f_year then
there would be entries like
f_year;value_of_f_year
1970 'NULL'
1970 dfgsd
1971 'NULL'
1971
My table design is - due to some import/update reasons - surely not
the best one, but pretty simple:
idy1970y1971y1972 ..
1 23 25 28
2 NULLNULL 5
3 NULL 94 102
What do you think?
Normally i use perl with DBD/DBI to
Make the table:
id | year | value
---+--+--
1 | 1970 |23
1 | 1971 |25
1 | 1972 |28
...
2 | 1972 | 5
3 | 1971 |94
3 | 1972 | 102
primary key: (id,year)
value not null
and be ready.
the import/update reasons are pretty easily solved
that way too.
yes, 128 MB is pretty pretty small.
Maybe the HP Smart Array P800 controller would be a better choice(if you
need an hp product).
BTW how many harddisks are you using ? Wich RAID ? I am using ext3 as a
filesystem (but you have to use the new linux kernels).
Try to use another filesystem then
Ugrade to a new kernel would be a very good idea, but you will have to
test the new kernel too.
In my oponion I believe that the reason for your
problem is either the linux kernel or your hardware.
I guess you have to update your kernel because of security bugs too.
Changing the Kernel is maybe
What OS are you running ?
Linux(32 or 64 Bit)? Ext 3 Filesystem ? Wich Kernel Version ?
Bug in Ext 3/Linux Kernel/Hardware(Raid Controller ?) ?
Does the error only happens under heavy load ?
regards,
-Franz
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im
If there is any database driver (which was bild with the
old postgresql sources/libs), (re)build this driver with
the new postgresql sources/libs.
Greetings,
-Franz
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Paolo Bizzarri
Gesendet:
How long does it take do a database dump (with gzip -1 via | and ), drop
this database
and create the database and restore it from the backup. That is my solution,
but I dont
know how long it will take to restore your database and i dont have so large
databases.
Secondly this sounds like a
Title: Nachricht
If you
need so much performance and space you will need an external storage
extensions(how about SAN)
or HP
ML 570 G4 (up to 18 hpt plug SFF Drives) with Intel 7041 CPUs
?
Greetings,
-Franz
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-Von: Alex Turner
[mailto:[EMAIL
Yes indeed if it would be possible, it should go to the website.
Good comparison without saying such things like this dbms has xx features
and this one has xx features.
Some addtitional information for setcion Further information:
phpPgAdmin http://phppgadmin.sourceforge.net/
Gborg
How much I/O Performance do you need ?
READ Performance ? Write Performance ?
I need an fast and reliable RAID Controller (harddisks have to be hot plug,
automatic rebuild etc.)
and I have to say that the HP DL 380 G 4 with Battery Backup Write Cache ,
FAST U320 HDs,
some gigs ram (chipkill is a
Title: Nachricht
I have
here an Smart Array 6i with 192 MB Battery Backup Write Cache with several 146
MB U320 SCSI HDs
and I
get read/write speed till 120 MB per secound (HP ProLiant DL 380G4) under Debian
Linux with
Kernel
2.4.32 an Postgresql 7.4.13.
Greetings,
-Franz
I have here HP DL 380 G3 und HP DL 380 G4. (here Smart Array 5i and Smart
Array 6i)
Maybe there are problems with old linux kernel (but as far as i know
2.4.27)
I dont know about such performance problems, maybe the conrollers are faster
under windows.
The battery backup write cache are very
Hello,
may I ask you some questions.
What is the performance difference between U320 15kRPM and U320 10kRPM ?
Does your RAID crontoller has some memory (e.g. 128 MB or 256 MB )
and something like memory backup write cache (like HP DL 380 server) ?
Do you use Intel or Opteron cpus ?
regards,
Hi,
i have seen both mysql and postgresql running on Network Aplliance
Filer via NFS (UNIX/BSD Server). NFS is slower than SAN or local Disks,
with NFS it is easier to move Data from one server to another server.
NFS tuning is tricky, Netapp NFS with snaphosts are great. But if
you have a lot of
Title: Question/problem with create view and restore a backup with such a view
Hello,
i have following situation:
Postgres 7.2.1 (Debian woody)
I created a view (look into the attached file, the file was converted with nedit from unix to windows )
and if I paste it into psql it
20 matches
Mail list logo
