Re: [PERFORM] Strange result: UNIX vs. TCP/IP sockets

2003-07-04 Thread Vincent van Leeuwen
st)--- > > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > > > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy > Systems Administrator @ hub.org > primary: [EMAIL PROTECTED] secondary: [EMAIL PROTECTED]|postgresql}.org > > ---(end of broadcast)--- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vincent van Leeuwen Media Design - http://www.mediadesign.nl/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Re: [PERFORM] Hardware performance

2003-07-17 Thread Vincent van Leeuwen
ome different setups under your own database load to see what works best for you. Vincent van Leeuwen Media Design - http://www.mediadesign.nl/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [PERFORM] Sanity check requested

2003-07-18 Thread Vincent van Leeuwen
on ext3 (yes, better than XFS, JFS or ReiserFS) with a linux 2.4.21 kernel. Be sure to mount noatime and to create the ext3 partition with the correct stripe size of your RAID array using the '-R stride=foo' option (see man mke2fs). Vincent van Leeuwen Media Des

Re: [PERFORM] Sanity check requested

2003-07-18 Thread Vincent van Leeuwen
consider though: - new files won't be created with the same options (I think), so you'll have to run this command as a daily cronjob or something to that effect - chattr is probably more filesystem-specific than a noatime mount, although this isn't a problem on ext[23] ofcour

Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL

2003-07-21 Thread Vincent van Leeuwen
undancy should a single disk fail. I'd use RAID-5 if you absolutely cannot use more disks, but I would use RAID-10 or two RAID-1 partitions if you can afford to use 4 disks. Vincent van Leeuwen Media Design - http://www.mediadesign.nl/ ---(end of broadcast)-

Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL

2003-07-22 Thread Vincent van Leeuwen
On 2003-07-22 09:04:42 +0200, Alexander Priem wrote: > Hi all, > > Vincent, You said that using RAID1, you don't have real redundancy. But > RAID1 is mirroring, right? So if one of the two disks should fail, there > should be no data lost, right? > Right. But the proposa