Re: [SPAM?] Re: PG8 Tuning

From: "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
To: Steve Poe <spoe(at)sfnet(dot)cc>
Cc: paul(at)oxton(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [SPAM?] Re: PG8 Tuning
Date: 2005-08-11 16:58:44
Message-ID: 1123779524.6664.1.camel@toonses.gghcwest.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:47 +0000, Steve Poe wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Before I say anything else, one online document which may be of
> assistance to you is:
> http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/
>
> Some thoughts I have:
>
> 3) You're shared RAM setting seems overkill to me. Part of the challenge
> is you're going from 1000 to 262K with no assessment in between. Each
> situation can be different, but try in the range of 10 - 50K.
>
> 4) pg_xlog: If you're pg_xlog is on a spindle is *only* for pg_xlog
> you're better off.

Like Mr. Stone said earlier, this is pure dogma. In my experience,
xlogs on the same volume with data is much faster if both are on
battery-backed write-back RAID controller memory. Moving from this
situation to xlogs on a single normal disk is going to be much slower in
most cases.

-jwb

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Lewis 2005-08-11 17:18:44 Re: PG8 Tuning
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-08-11 16:43:05 Re: BG writer question?