| From: | Alan Stange <stange(at)rentec(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Joshua Marsh <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Date: | 2005-11-18 14:46:56 |
| Message-ID: | 437DE960.9070606@rentec.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Alan,
>
> On 11/18/05 5:41 AM, "Alan Stange" <stange(at)rentec(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> That's interesting, as I occasionally see more than 110MB/s of
>> postgresql IO on our system. I'm using a 32KB block size, which has
>> been a huge win in performance for our usage patterns. 300GB database
>> with a lot of turnover. A vacuum analyze now takes about 3 hours, which
>> is much shorter than before. Postgresql 8.1, dual opteron, 8GB memory,
>> Linux 2.6.11, FC drives.
>>
>
> 300GB / 3 hours = 27MB/s.
>
That's 3 hours under load, with 80 compute clients beating on the
database at the same time. We have the stats turned way up, so the
analyze tends to read a big chunk of the tables a second time as
well. We typically don't have three hours a day of idle time.
-- Alan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron | 2005-11-18 15:00:56 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-11-18 14:04:24 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |