Re: Xeon vs Opteron - second revision - tests and questions

From: Marcin Giedz <marcin(dot)giedz(at)eulerhermes(dot)pl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Xeon vs Opteron - second revision - tests and questions
Date: 2005-11-11 19:26:41
Message-ID: 4374F071.9010808@eulerhermes.pl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Tom Lane napisał(a):

>Marcin Giedz <marcin(dot)giedz(at)eulerhermes(dot)pl> writes:
>
>
>>However I still can see 'spikey' performance but not as much as before
>>changes. What can I do more to eliminate or smooth these spikes?
>>
>>
>
>The spikes are certainly caused by checkpoints. You can fool with the
>checkpoint timing via checkpoint_segments and checkpoint_timeout.
>
>
I didn't mention before but I changed checkpoint_segments to 300 but no
checkpoint_time. Disk space doesn't matter at all ... time to
recovery.... shouldn't be very long (I don't have much experiences with
this as I do online backup every day). Can anyone please tell me what
values of these two parametres are reasonable?

Regards,
Marcin

>Usually people put them as far apart as they can stand (the constraint
>on this is mainly how long you'd like to wait for recovery after a
>system crash, and how much disk space you can spare for WAL logs).
>Increasing the bg_writer parameters can be expected to dampen the spikes
>but not eliminate them completely.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Byers 2005-11-11 20:10:30 autovacuum on updated rows
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-11-11 19:11:57 Re: Xeon vs Opteron - second revision - tests and questions