On 6-Dec-06, at 5:26 PM, Ron wrote:
At 06:40 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
the
-wise, you have lot's of
4S mainboard options, but the AMD 4C CPUs won't be available until
sometime late in 2007.
I've got other ideas, but this list is not the appropriate venue
for the level of detail required.
Ron Peacetree
At 05:30 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
On 6-Dec-06, at 2:47 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
Hmmm. Something is not right. With a 16 HD RAID 10 based on 10K
rpm HDs, you should be seeing higher absolute performance numbers.
Find out what HW the Areca guys and Tweakers guys used to test the
1280s.
At LW2006, Areca was demonstrating all
Hmmm. Something is not right. With a 16 HD RAID 10 based on 10K
rpm HDs, you should be seeing higher absolute performance numbers.
Find out what HW the Areca guys and Tweakers guys used to test the
1280s.
At LW2006, Areca was demonstrating all-in-cache reads and writes of
~1600MBps and ~
On 6-Dec-06, at 9:05 AM, Alexander Staubo wrote:
All tests are with bonnie++ 1.03a
[snip]
Care to post these numbers *without* word wrapping? Thanks.
That's what Bonnie++'s output looks like. If you have Bonnie++
installed, you can run the following:
bon_csv2html << EOF
hulk4,64368M,
7862
All tests are with bonnie++ 1.03a
Main components of system:
16 WD Raptor 150GB 1 RPM drives all in a RAID 10
ARECA 1280 PCI-Express RAID adapter with 1GB BB Cache (Thanks for the
recommendation, Ron!)
32 GB RAM
Dual Intel 5160 Xeon Woodcrest 3.0 GHz processors
OS: SUSE Linux 10.1
All run
On 5-Dec-06, at 4:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Brian Wipf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
shared_buffers can now be set as high as shmmax without getting the
error message "could not create shared memory segment...". Now,
however, when shared_buffers are set greater than 279212 a
se
relying more on the kernel cache, the
difference does not appear as significant as I thought. We currently
have shared_buffers set to about 25% of system memory on our box
where we are free to set it within the bounds of shmmax (not OS X, of
course).
Brian Wipf
&l
On 26-Nov-06, at 11:25 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:13:26PM -0700, Brian Wipf wrote:
It certainly is unfortunate if Guido's right and this is an upper
limit for OS X. The performance benefit of having high shared_buffers
on our mostly read database is remarkable.
Go
e has
tried and failed, they've not bothered to provide details on any PG
list
I read ...
I'll post details of the problems I've had compiling for 64-bit on OS
X Tiger to the pgsql-ports when I get a chance.
Brian Wipf
---(end of broadcast)---
On 18-Nov-06, at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On 16-Nov-06, at 7:03 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
Has anyone else noticed this limitation on OS X? Any ideas on how I
might get shared_buffers higher than 284263?
My guess is something else has taken shared
67296
kern.sysv.shmmin: 1
kern.sysv.shmmni: 32
kern.sysv.shmseg: 8
kern.sysv.shmall: 1048576
Has anyone else noticed this limitation on OS X? Any ideas on how I
might get shared_buffers higher than 284263?
Brian Wipf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end o
I put all 16 drives in a
RAID 10 for the database, where should I put the logs? On that large
RAID set? If I use a RAID controller with a BB cache for the mirrored
laptop drives, might I be able to use that for the logs and OS?
Brian Wipf
---(end of broa
it's hard to have a preference when you're new to the Linux world,
like I am. Red Hat, Fedora Core, Slackware, Suse, Gentoo? I guess my
primary goal is speed, stability, and ease of use. Any advice here,
no matter how minimal, would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Brian Wipf
-
is_active_and_status_idx index as on
our backup server. Still not sure what's causing the differences in
query execution between the servers, but at least the query is fast
again.
Brian
On 10-May-06, at 4:39 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
I'm trying to determine why an identical query
the same explain plan as the backup server, or can suggest anything I
might want to try, I would greatly appreciate it.
Brian Wipf
ClickSpace Interactive Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here's the query:
SELECT ac.attribute_id
FROMattribute_category ac
WHERE is_browsable = 'tru
16 matches
Mail list logo
