On 09/03/12, Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
I've taken the liberty of reposting this message as my addendum to a
long thread that I started on the subject of adding a new db server to
our
sizes.
Rory
On 09/03/12, Rory Campbell-Lange (r...@campbell-lange.net) wrote:
...An ancillary question is whether a 4096 block size is a good idea.
I suppose we will be using XFS which I understand has a default block
size of 4096 bytes.
RAID 10
--
Read
163840017.61001127.56
655360061.39000982.39
1310720079.27000634.16
--
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net
Campbell-Lange Workshop
www.campbell-lange.net
0207 6311 555
3 Tottenham Street London W1T 2AF
--
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net
Campbell-Lange Workshop
www.campbell-lange.net
0207 6311 555
3 Tottenham Street London W1T 2AF
Registered in England No. 04551928
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http
On 04/03/12, Rory Campbell-Lange (r...@campbell-lange.net) wrote:
I'd be grateful for advice on specifying a new server
...
The existing server is a 2 x Quad core E5420 Xeon (2.5GHz) with 8GB of
RAM with an LSI battery-backed RAID 10 array of 4no 10K SCSI disks,
providing about 230GB
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
...
[Description of system with 2 * 4 core Xeons, 8GB RAM, LSI card with
4*15K SCSI drives
On 05/03/12, Craig James (cja...@emolecules.com) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
We do have complex transactions, but I haven't benchmarked the
performance so I can't describe it. Few of the databases are at the many
million row
can get the BBU for the Areca card, and that
15K SAS disks are available, I'd be grateful for comments on this
configuration.
Regards
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net
Campbell-Lange Workshop
www.campbell-lange.net
0207 6311 555
3 Tottenham Street London W1T 2AF
Registered
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
r...@campbell-lange.net wrote:
[About existing server...] We would get faster performance, I
believe, by providing more RAM. Sorry -- I should have some pg_bench
output to share
We have a web application for which we intend to run the database on a
dedicated server.
We hope by the end of 2008 to have 10 companies accessing 10 instances
of the database for this application. The dump file of each database is
likely to be less than 100MB at the end of the year. The
that is probably closer to
the current head position.
I would argue that you should benchmark it instead of speculating.
Is there a good way of benchmarking? We don't have much in the way of
test data at present.
Regards,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.campbell-lange.net
16 5225 27 + +++ 8740 37 5205 28 + +++ 4744 21
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.campbell-lange.net
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe
on an LSI card. I was not using LVM. If I had less than 8
discs, seq. output was about equal regardless of file system being uses
(EXT3,JFS,or XFS).
Thanks for the information. I certainly had not appreciated this fact.
Regards,
Rory
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 12:12 +, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote
and /postgres
logical volumes as needed.
Are there any major pitfalls to this approach?
Thanks,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.campbell-lange.net
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your
Hi August. Thanks very much for your mail.
On 06/12/05, August Zajonc ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
The server has a 250GB RAID10 (LSI 320-I + BBU) volume which I am
thinking of slicing up in the following way (Linux 2.6 kernel):
/ : ext3 : 47GB (root
Hi. We have a server provided for a test of a web application with the
following specifications:
1 Dual core 1.8GHz Opteron chip
6 GB RAM
approx 250GB of RAID10 storage (LSI card + BBU, 4 x 15000 RPM,16MB
Cache SCSI disks)
The database itself is very unlikely to use up more than
only) for 1U Server
Thanks for any further comments,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.campbell-lange.net
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
On 09/06/05, William Yu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
... Some have suggested that a single dual core processor is the way
to go. The RAM needs to fit the CPU arrangement too; William points
out that one needs 2 DIMMS per CPU.
Your summary here just pointed out
On 09/06/05, Matthew Nuzum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On 6/9/05, Rory Campbell-Lange [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disks:
I'm somewhat confused here. I've followed the various notes about SATA
vs SCSI and it seems that SCSI is the way to go. On a four-slot 1U
server, would one do a single
/ 8MB Cache
250GB SATA-150 7200RPM Hard Disk / 8MB Cache
Slimline 8x DVD / 24x CD-ROM Drive
Standard 3yr (UK) Next Business Day On-site Warranty
I would be grateful for any comments about this config.
Kind regards,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.campbell-lange.net
don't
require anything spectacular, just good speedy general performance.
I imagine dedicating around 25% of RAM to Shared Memory and 2-4% for
Sort memory.
Comments and advice gratefully received.
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.campbell-lange.net
---(end
21 matches
Mail list logo
