From: Alan Stange <stange@rentec.com>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Cc: Joshua Marsh <icub3d@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:46:56 -0500
Message-ID: <437DE960.9070606@rentec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BFA31B52.14012%llonergan@greenplum.com>
References: <BFA31B52.14012%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Alan,
>
> On 11/18/05 5:41 AM, "Alan Stange" <stange@rentec.com> wrote:
>
>
>> That's interesting, as I occasionally see more than 110MB/s of
>> postgresql IO on our system. I'm using a 32KB block size, which has
>> been a huge win in performance for our usage patterns. 300GB database
>> with a lot of turnover. A vacuum analyze now takes about 3 hours, which
>> is much shorter than before. Postgresql 8.1, dual opteron, 8GB memory,
>> Linux 2.6.11, FC drives.
>>
>
> 300GB / 3 hours = 27MB/s.
>
That's 3 hours under load, with 80 compute clients beating on the
database at the same time. We have the stats turned way up, so the
analyze tends to read a big chunk of the tables a second time as
well. We typically don't have three hours a day of idle time.
-- Alan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: stange@rentec.com, llonergan@greenplum.com, pg@fastcrypt.com, gsstark@mit.edu, icub3d@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases (
In-Reply-To: <437DE960.9070606@rentec.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox