From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Johnson, Shaunn" <SJohnson6(at)bcbsm(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: performance enhancements for PostgreSQL: update |
Date: | 2002-11-18 22:30:57 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0211181525370.17758-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Johnson, Shaunn wrote:
> su -l postgres -s /bin/sh -c "/usr/bin/pg_ctl -D $PGDATA -o '-i -B 128 -N 64
> -d 2' \
> -p /usr/bin/postmaster start >/dev/null "
Doing it that way, you should be able to leave out the parts from -o on
and get it to use the postgresql.conf file settings.
> --is this true? perhaps someone can verify this.
Generally speaking, while it still considered bad practice (or at least
somewhat "rude" :-) to kill -9 the postmaster, it isn't particularly
dangerous. I've done it while heavily testing a database (pgbench -c 100
-t 5000) and it never once corrupted my database.
> --this is what the /proc/mdstat says
>
> --[snip from /proc/mdstats]
>
> Personalities :
> read_ahead not set
> unused devices: <none>
>
> --[/snip from /proc/mdstats]
>
> That looks like a dead drive in your RAID array. What does 'cat
> /proc/mdstat' say about the drive
>
> --i'm doing a linux software raid
Is there anymore to the /proc/mdstat entry? normally you should have a
line that has a bit that names the drive partitions in the software raid
and has a bit showing which drives are online that looks something like
this: [UUUU] for all drives being UP. And like this: [UU_U] where the
underscore shows a missing drive. If you don't have a line like that
then Linux isn't doing the software RAID array. Could it be that you
aren't actually running RAID but think you are? Just wondering.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Medi Montaseri | 2002-11-18 22:36:51 | Re: performance enhancements for PostgreSQL: update |
Previous Message | Johnson, Shaunn | 2002-11-18 21:58:02 | Re: performance enhancements for PostgreSQL: update |