Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Performance advice

From: Achilleus Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com>
To: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance advice
Date: 2003-06-24 14:10:48
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0306241140410.10640-100000@matrix.gatewaynet.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:

> On 24 Jun 2003 at 13:29, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > - I have at my disposal one other server which has 2 Xeons, 10,000 RPM SCSI
> > > drive.  Would it make sense to put Postgres on it and leave my apps running
> > > on the more powerful 4 CPU server?
> 
> Argh.. Forgot it first time. 
> 
> With java runnning on same machine, I would not trust that machine for having 
> free RAM all the time, no matter how much RAM you have put into it.

There are always the -Xmx, -Xss, -Xms jvm switches,
to control stack (per thread) and heap sizes.

> 
> Secondly you are running linux which is known to have weird behaviour problems 
> when it runs low on memory.
> 
> For both these reasons, I suggest you put your database on another machine. A 
> dual CPU machine is more than enough. Put good deal RAM, around a GB and two 
> SCSI disks, one for data and another for WAL. If you get RAID for data, great. 
> But that should suffice otherwise as well.
> 

I think the DB on another machine could be from something helpfull,
to an overkill, to a leg self shooting.
Depending on the type of the majority of queries and the network speed
someone should give an extra time to think about it.

> > > 
> > > - Would a RAID setup make the disk faster?  Because top rarely shows the
> > > CPUs above 50%, I suspect maybe the disk is the bottleneck.
> > 
> > Yes it is. You need to move WAL to a different disk. Even if it is IDE. (OK 
> > that was over exaggeration but you got the point). If your data directories and 
> > WAL logs are on physically different disks, that should bump up performance 
> > plenty.
> 
> In addition to that, on linux, it matters a lot as in what filesystem you use. 
> IMO ext3 is strict no-no. Go for either reiserfs or XFS.
> 
> There is no agreement as in which file system is best on linux. so you need to 
> experiment if you need every ounce of performance.
> 
> And for that you got to try freeBSD. That would gave you plenty of idea about 
> performance differences. ( Especially I love man hier and man tuning on 
> freeBSD. Nothing on linux comes anywhere near to that)
> 

Its like comparing Mazda with VVT-i.
Whould you expect to find the furniture fabric
specs in the main engine manual?

Besides all that, i must note that jdk1.4.1 runs pretty
nice on FreeBSD, and some efforts to run java
over the KSE libs have been done with success.


> Bye
>  Shridhar
> 
> --
> "Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk ?"Microsoft spel 
> chekar vor sail, worgs grate !!(By leitner(at)inf(dot)fu-berlin(dot)de, Felix von Leitner)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
> 

-- 
==================================================================
Achilleus Mantzios
S/W Engineer
IT dept
Dynacom Tankers Mngmt
Nikis 4, Glyfada
Athens 16610
Greece
tel:    +30-210-8981112
fax:    +30-210-8981877
email:  achill at matrix dot gatewaynet dot com
        mantzios at softlab dot ece dot ntua dot gr


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-06-24 14:18:57
Subject: Re: Performance advice
Previous:From: Michael MattoxDate: 2003-06-24 12:16:09
Subject: Re: Performance advice

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group