| From: | Ryan Wexler <ryan(at)iridiumsuite(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jochen Erwied <jochen(at)pgsql-performance(dot)erwied(dot)eu> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: performance on new linux box |
| Date: | 2010-07-08 19:37:58 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimx5Ug2iAQLv3l5scscART_6fm-wCl10k1nWyti@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Jochen Erwied <
jochen(at)pgsql-performance(dot)erwied(dot)eu> wrote:
> Thursday, July 8, 2010, 9:18:20 PM you wrote:
>
> > However, I just verified with the hosting company that BBU is off on the
> > raid controller. I am trying to find out my options, turn it on,
> different
> > card, etc...
>
> Turning it on requires the external BBU to be installed, so even if a 9650
> has BBU support, it requires the hardware on a pluggable card.
>
> And even If the BBU is present, it requires to pass the selftest once until
> you are able to turn on write caching.
>
>
> --
> Jochen Erwied | home: jochen(at)erwied(dot)eu +49-208-38800-18, FAX:
> -19
> Sauerbruchstr. 17 | work: joe(at)mbs-software(dot)de +49-2151-7294-24, FAX:
> -50
> D-45470 Muelheim | mobile: jochen(dot)erwied(at)vodafone(dot)de
> +49-173-5404164
>
>
One thing I don't understand is why BBU will result in a huge performance
gain. I thought BBU was all about power failures?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben Chobot | 2010-07-08 19:40:30 | Re: performance on new linux box |
| Previous Message | Richard Yen | 2010-07-08 19:34:19 | Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum? |