| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: refusing connections based on load ... |
| Date: | 2001-04-25 12:41:57 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.33.0104250941000.4451-100000@mobile.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Nathan Myers wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:28:17PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > I have a Dual-866, 1gig of RAM and strip'd file systems ... this past
> > week, I've hit many times where CPU usage is 100%, RAM is 500Meg free and
> > disks are pretty much sitting idle ...
>
> Assuming "strip'd" above means "striped", it strikes me that you
> might be much better off operating the drives independently, with
> the various tables, indexes, and logs scattered each entirely on one
> drive.
have you ever tried to maintain a database doing this? PgSQL is
definitely not designed for this sort of setup, I had symlinks goign
everywhere,a nd with the new numbering schema, this is even more difficult
to try and do :)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vince Vielhaber | 2001-04-25 12:56:31 | Re: Comment about PostgreSQL on Epinions.com |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-04-25 12:28:50 | Re: Re: [BUG?] tgconstrrelid doesn't survive a dump/restore |