| From: | Ron Wills <ron(at)rwsoft(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Really bad diskio |
| Date: | 2005-07-16 21:14:55 |
| Message-ID: | 871x5yh2r4.wl%ron@rwsoft.ca |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
At Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:39:36 -0600,
Ron Wills wrote:
I just wanted to thank everyone for their help. I believe we found a
solution that will help with this problem, with the hardware
configuration and caching the larger tables into smaller data sets.
A valuable lesson learned from this ;)
> Hello all
>
> I'm running a postgres 7.4.5, on a dual 2.4Ghz Athlon, 1Gig RAM and
> an 3Ware SATA raid. Currently the database is only 16G with about 2
> tables with 500000+ row, one table 200000+ row and a few small
> tables. The larger tables get updated about every two hours. The
> problem I having with this server (which is in production) is the disk
> IO. On the larger tables I'm getting disk IO wait averages of
> ~70-90%. I've been tweaking the linux kernel as specified in the
> PostgreSQL documentations and switched to the deadline
> scheduler. Nothing seems to be fixing this. The queries are as
> optimized as I can get them. fsync is off in an attempt to help
> preformance still nothing. Are there any setting I should be look at
> the could improve on this???
>
> Thanks for and help in advance.
>
> Ron
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steven Rosenstein | 2005-07-16 21:42:21 | Questions about temporary tables and performance |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2005-07-16 11:01:08 | Re: more filesystem benchmarks |