Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF726502C6 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:05:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85040-01-4 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:04:50 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7383D650279 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:04:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KLnNf-0000FN-Sv for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:04:23 +0000 Received: from apn-77-112-123-233.gprs.plus.pl ([77.112.123.233]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:04:23 +0000 Received: from public by apn-77-112-123-233.gprs.plus.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:04:23 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org From: Miernik Subject: Re: how to fix problem then when two queries run at the same time, it takes longer to complete then if run in sequence Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:04:04 +0200 Lines: 27 Message-ID: <20080723230404.3269.0.NOFFLE@turbacz.local> References: <20080723152112.30A4.0.NOFFLE@turbacz.local> <20080723203203.31C4.0.NOFFLE@turbacz.local> Reply-To: Miernik X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: apn-77-112-123-233.gprs.plus.pl X-Archive: encrypt=none User-Agent: tin/1.9.3-20080506 ("Dalintober") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.25-2-686 (i686)) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200807/222 X-Sequence-Number: 30822 Scott Marlowe wrote: > Well, my guess is that by running under Xen you're already sacrificing > quite a bit of performance, and running it with only 48 Megs of ram is > making it even worse. But if your budget is $100 a year, I guess > you're probably stuck with such a setup. I would see if you can get a > trial Xen at the other hosts with 128M or more of memory and compare. Is running in a 48 MB Xen any different in terms of performance to running on a hardware 48 MB RAM machine? I see that I am not the only one with such requirements, one guy even set up a site listing all VPS providers which host for under 7$ per month: http://www.lowendbox.com/virtual-server-comparison/ You can see that the most you can get for that money is a 128 MB OpenVZ I wonder if running PostgreSQL on OpenVZ is any different to running it on Xen in terms of performance. Oh here is something more: http://vpsempire.com/action.php?do=vpslite 256 MB for 7.45$ per month 512 MB for 11.95$ per month however it doesn't say what is the virtualization software, so don't really know what it is. -- Miernik http://miernik.name/