From: | jao(at)geophile(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | Rob Fielding <rob(at)dsvr(dot)net> |
Cc: | Matthew Nuzum <cobalt(at)bearfruit(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Configuring PostgreSQL to minimize impact of checkpoints |
Date: | 2004-05-11 16:52:32 |
Message-ID: | 1084294352.40a104d04ad0d@geophile.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Quoting Rob Fielding <rob(at)dsvr(dot)net>:
> Assuming you're running with optimal schema and index design (ie you're
> not doing extra work unnecessarily), and your backend has
> better-then-default config options set-up (plenty of tips around here),
> then disk arrangement is critical to smoothing the ride.
The schema and queries are extremely simple. I've been experimenting
with config options. One possibility I'm looking into is whether
shared_buffers is too high, at 12000. We have some preliminary evidence
that setting it lower (1000) reduces the demand for IO bandwidth to
a point where the spikes become almost tolerable.
> First tip would to take your pg_xlog and put it on another disk (and
> channel).
That's on my list of things to try.
> Next if you're running a journalled fs, get that journal off
> onto another disk (and channel). Finally, get as many disks for the data
> store and spread the load across spindles.
Dumb question: how do I spread the data across spindles? Do you have
a pointer to something I could read?
Jack Orenstein
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-05-11 17:30:31 | Re: Configuring PostgreSQL to minimize impact of checkpoints |
Previous Message | Rob Fielding | 2004-05-11 15:12:20 | Re: Configuring PostgreSQL to minimize impact of checkpoints |