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.
>
On 09/03/12, Merlin Moncure (mmonc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
> 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
>
001135.30
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 Lond
000634.16
--
--
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 su
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,
> p
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.
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
> 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 in
On 04/03/12, Scott Marlowe (scott.marl...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange
> wrote:
> > [About existing server...] We would get faster performance, I
> > believe, by providing more RAM. Sorry -- I should have some pg_bench
> > output
15K SAS disk
options. Assuming that I 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 63
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 databases
had 8+ discs in a RAID10
> configuration 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, 200
1
mas 16 5225 27 + +++ 8740 37 5205 28 + +++ 4744 21
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail
f just another file on the same FS 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
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):
> >
&g
/data and /postgres
logical volumes as needed.
Are there any major pitfalls to this approach?
Thanks,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignor
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 5
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
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.
>
rriage : PC System Carriage (UK only) for 1U Server
Thanks for any further comments,
Rory
--
Rory Campbell-Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Hard Disk / 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
<[EM
performance. I 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]>
--
21 matches
Mail list logo
