From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Stef <svb(at)ucs(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Strange problems with more memory. |
Date: | 2004-08-17 06:26:15 |
Message-ID: | 4121A507.1000704@coretech.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
If your nightly process is heavily read-only, then raid5 is probably
fine. If however, there is a significant write component then it would
perhaps be worth getting another disk and converting to raid10
(alternatively - see previous postings about raid cards with on-board
cache). Are you seeing a lot of write activity?
Note that it is possible for a SELECT only workload to generate
significant write activity - if the resulting datasets are too large for
memory sorting or hashing. I'm *guessing* that with an 11G database and
1G (or was that 2G?) of ram that it is possible to overflow whatever
your sort_mem is set to.
cheers
Mark
Stef wrote:
>Got 3 10000 rpm SCSI raid5 on here. I doubt I will get much better than that
>without losing both arms and legs...
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | olivier HARO | 2004-08-17 13:30:29 | General performance problem! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-16 23:25:41 | Re: Timestamp-based indexing |