On 27 Aug 2003 at 14:07, Castle, Lindsay wrote:
> I'm mainly interested in what I should concentrate on from a
> Linux/PostgreSQL config point of view to see if we can take advantage of the
> extra CPUs. - Yes it's overkill but this is a piece of surplus hardware we
> don't have to buy.
First of all whatever you do, add multiple connections using a middle layer.
That will keep your CPU busy.
Of course there are few things need to be done over single connection but this
should help at least in some scenarios.
> Perhaps some may say Linux isn't the best option for an 8 CPU server but
> this is what I have to work with for reasons we won't get into :-)
I think if you can afford a performance benchmark trial, give 2.6.0-testx a
try. They should be much better than 2.4.x.
> The current usage is along the lines of a few thousands updates spread over
> the space of a few hours in the morning then followed by a thousand select
> queries to do some reporting.
In case of such IO intensive and update/delete heavy load, might be a good idea
to move WAL to a separate SCSI channel. I believe merely moving it to another
drive would not yield as much boost.
> Currently RedHat 9 with PostgreSQL 7.3.2 installed.
Get 7.4CVS head. and don't forget to use a autovacuum daemon. It's in contrib
Ogden's Law: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ron Johnson||Date: 2003-08-27 08:12:31|
|Subject: Re: Replication Ideas|
|Previous:||From: Shridhar Daithankar||Date: 2003-08-27 06:54:40|
|Subject: Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results.|