On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Jeffrey W. Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Strangely the RAID controller behaves badly on the TPC-B workload. It
>> is faster than disk, but not by a lot, and it's much slower than th
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In case someone is wondering, the way to force DBI to use unix
>> sockets is by not specifying a host and port in the connect call.
>
> Actually, the host defaults to the local socket. Using the port
> may still be n
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>
>> Their firmware is, frankly, garbage. In more than one instance we
>> have had the card panic when a disk fails, which is obviously counter
>> t
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>
>> But most recently in my memory we had an Areca HBA which, when one of its
>> WD RE-2 disks failed, completely stopped responding to both the com
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Jeff wrote:
>
>> I've got a couple boxes with some 3ware 9550 controllers, and I'm less
>> than pleased with performance on them.. Sequential access is nice, but start
>> seeking around and you kick it in
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>
>> On the single 2.2GHz Athlon, the maximum tps seems to be 1450...what's the
>> bottleneck? Is PG lock-bound?
>
> It can become lock-bound i
I'm spending a third day testing with the ioDrive, and it occurred to
me that I should normalize my tests by mounting the database on a
ramdisk. The results were surprisingly low. On the single 2.2GHz
Athlon, the maximum tps seems to be 1450. This is achieved with a
single connection. I/O rates
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Service Time Percentile, millis
>>>R/W TPS R-O TPS 50th 80t
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently got my hands on a device called ioDrive from a company
> called Fusion-io. The ioDrive is essentially 80GB of flash on a PCI
> card.
[...]
>Service Time
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Andrej Ricnik-Bay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/07/2008, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Red Hat and its clones. The other problem is the 80GB model is too
>> small to hold my entire DB, Although it could be use
I recently got my hands on a device called ioDrive from a company
called Fusion-io. The ioDrive is essentially 80GB of flash on a PCI
card. It has its own driver for Linux completely outside of the
normal scsi/sata/sas/fc block device stack, but from the user's
perspective it behaves like a block
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Andrzej Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're planning new production server for PostgreSQL and I'm wondering
> which processor (or even platform) will be better: Quad Xeon or Quad
> Opteron (for example SUN now has a new offer Sun Fire X4440 x64)
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Subbiah Stalin-XCGF84
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are doing some load tests with our application running postgres 8.2.4. At
> times we see updates on a table taking longer (around
> 11-16secs) than expected sub-second response time. The table in ques
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:19 AM, sathiya psql <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This query is being executed nearly a million times
>SELECT 'DBD::Pg ping test'
Something in your Perl application is use $dbh->ping(). See perldoc
DBI. It's possible that this is happening un
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > &g
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > This autovacuum has been hammering my serv
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jeffrey Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This autovacuum has been hammering my server with purely random i/o
> > for half a week. The table is only 20GB and the i/o subsystem is g
This autovacuum has been hammering my server with purely random i/o
for half a week. The table is only 20GB and the i/o subsystem is good
for 250MB/s sequential and a solid 5kiops. When should I expect it to
end (if ever)?
current_query: VACUUM reuters.value
query_start: 2008-04-15 20:12:48.8068
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 11:24 AM, kevin kempter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi List;
>
> I have a large tble (playback_device) with 6million rows in it. The
> aff_id_tmp1 table has 600,000 rows.
> - why am I still getting a seq scan ?
>
You're selecting almost all the rows in the product of aff
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So in the case of this simple benchmark, I see an enormous performance
> regression from the newest Linux kernel compared to a much older one.
This has been discussed recently on linux-kernel. It's definitely a
regression.
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:17:10 -0400
>
>
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thinking about buying the Powervault
Thinking about buying the Powervault MD3000 SAS array with 15 15k
300GB disks for use as a postgres tablespace. Is anyone using these
(or other LSI/Engenio rebadge jobs?). I'm interested in hearing about
performance of the array, and problems (if any) with Dell's SAS HBA
that comes bundled. Also
22 matches
Mail list logo
