| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, brianb-pggeneral(at)edsamail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
| Date: | 2000-08-01 13:05:53 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000801060553.013e2ca0@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
At 02:31 PM 8/1/00 +1000, Philip Warner wrote:
>>Have you tried pg_dump on a multi-processor machine, which most serious
>>database-backed websites run on these days? Do you see the same
performance
>>degradation? My site runs on a dual P450 with RAID 1 LVD disks, and cost
>>me exactly $2100 to build (would've been less if I'd laid off the extra
>>cooling fans!)
>
>The original request came from a person with a "4-CPU Xeon with 2GB of
>RAM", but the "solution" does not seem to work for them (I think), so it's
>probably a waste of time.
It seems really strange that pg_dump could suck the guts out of a
four-processor
machine. What kind of device were they backing up to? Disk?
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | abe | 2000-08-01 13:19:22 | Someone Needed!! |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-08-01 12:46:38 | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2000-08-01 13:37:04 | Re: pg_dump & performance degradation |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-08-01 13:02:26 | pg_dump & ownership (again) |