Sorry Jesper, I thought I had mentioned.. our dataset have 18GB.
Pedro Axelrud
http://mailee.me
http://softa.com.br
http://flavors.me/pedroaxl
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 03:21, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> Option 2:
>> App Server and Postgres: Dual Xeon 5520 quad core with 12GB ram and 2x
>> 146GB 15k
Option 2:
App Server and Postgres: Dual Xeon 5520 quad core with 12GB ram and
2x 146GB 15k RPM SAS (RAID1) disks
you didnt mention your dataset size, but i the second option would
be preferrable in most situations since it gives more of the os memory
for disc caching. 12 gb vs 4 gb for
Hello,
I work for a web app to send email newsletters, and I have one question
about postgres' performance in two different setups. Actually we have one
4GB Ram VPS running our app server (it's a rails app under nginx and thin)
and a 4GB Ram VPS running the database (18GB). We want to migrate to b
"Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G
> ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to
> hit the old data, but the SW RAID-10 on it made it much faster at
> reporting than it would have been with a single disk.
Would th
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PERFORM] Which hardware ?
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:38:59 +0200
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>
> Hi,
>
> I need to install a 8.3 database and was wondering which hardware would
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Lionel wrote:
I did some test with a 20 millions lines database on a single disk dual core
2GB win XP system (default postgresql config), most of the time is spent in
I/O: 50-100 secs for statements that scan 6 millions of lines, which will
happen. Almost no CPU activity.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Lionel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" wrote:
>> You're absolutely right though, we really need to know the value of
>> fast performance here.
>
> the main problem is that my customers are used to have their reporting after
> few seconds.
> They want d
"Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> You're absolutely right though, we really need to know the value of
> fast performance here.
the main problem is that my customers are used to have their reporting after
few seconds.
They want do have 10 times more data but still have the same speed, which
is, I think, q
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G
>> ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to
>> hit the old data, but the SW RAID
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
We had a reporting server with about 80G of data on a machine with 4G
ram last place I worked, and it could take it a few extra seconds to
hit the old data, but the SW RAID-10 on it made it much faster at
reporting than it would have been with a single d
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
A running JVM is necessarily going to use some memory, and that is
memory use that you won't be able to factor out properly when developing
models of your database system performance.
Now you've wandered into pure FUD. Tuning maximum memory usage o
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:49:17PM +0200, Lionel wrote:
>> My tomcat webapp is well coded and consumes nearly nothing.
>
> If I were ever inclined to say, "Nonsense," about code I've never
> seen, this is probably the oc
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering that Lionel's system seems pretty overpowered for what he's
> doing--runs plenty fast on a much slower system, enough RAM to hold a large
> portion of the primary tables and database, all batch updates that don't
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 04:49:17PM +0200, Lionel wrote:
> My tomcat webapp is well coded and consumes nearly nothing.
If I were ever inclined to say, "Nonsense," about code I've never
seen, this is probably the occasion on which I'd do it. A running JVM
is necessarily going to use some memory, a
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Which OS would you use ? (knowing that there will be a JDK 1.6 installed
too)
. . .I think this is the real mistake. Get a separate database box.
It's approximately impossible to tune a box correctly for both your
application and your database, in m
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> You won't need lots of processer, then.
can't find less than quad core for this price range...
> How big's the database?
with 20 millions of rows, the main table is 3.5 Go on win XP.
With 8 Go of indexes.
I estimate the whole database around 30 Go / year
> If you can
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Lionel wrote:
I need to install a 8.3 database and was wondering which hardware would be
sufficient to have good performances (less than 30s for² slowest select).
It's almost impossible to predict what users will do via the webapplication
that queries this database: almost
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 03:38:59PM +0200, Lionel wrote:
>> Which OS would you use ? (knowing that there will be a JDK 1.6 installed
>> too)
>
> . . .I think this is the real mistake. Get a separate database box.
> It's
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 03:38:59PM +0200, Lionel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to install a 8.3 database and was wondering which hardware would be
> sufficient to have good performances (less than 30s for� slowest select).
> Statements will mainly do sums on the main table, grouped by whatever column
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Lionel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to install a 8.3 database and was wondering which hardware would be
> sufficient to have good performances (less than 30s for² slowest select).
>
> Database size: 25 Go /year, 5 years of history
> One main table con
Hi,
I need to install a 8.3 database and was wondering which hardware would be
sufficient to have good performances (less than 30s for² slowest select).
Database size: 25 Go /year, 5 years of history
One main table containing 40 million lines per year.
Batch inserts of 10 lines. Very very fe
21 matches
Mail list logo
