| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
| Date: | 2010-04-20 19:24:34 |
| Message-ID: | h2xdcc563d11004201224wc7471e0dx335ab345d37f04ca@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:28 PM, David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:23:51PM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> - So are you logging to the same drive that has pg_xlog and your
> - data/base directory on this machine?
> -
>
> the db, xlog and logs are all on separate areas of the SAN.
>
> separate I/O controllers, etc on the SAN. it's setup well, I wouldn't expect
> contention there.
Same xkb/s gigabit connection?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Crooke | 2010-04-20 19:29:28 | Re: SOLVED ... Re: Getting rid of a cursor from JDBC .... Re: [PERFORM] Re: HELP: How to tame the 8.3.x JDBC driver with a biq guery result set |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-04-20 19:22:36 | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |