Re: autovacuum
От
Scott Marlowe
Тема
Re: autovacuum
Дата
Msg-id
dcc563d10709201433o5db3fd30m6e460565bcb82fe6@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: autovacuum (Robert Fitzpatrick)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
autovacuum Robert Fitzpatrick <lists@webtent.net>
Re: autovacuum Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
Re: autovacuum Robert Fitzpatrick <lists@webtent.net>
Re: autovacuum Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
Re: autovacuum Robert Fitzpatrick <lists@webtent.net>
Re: autovacuum "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: autovacuum Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Re: autovacuum "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Re: autovacuum Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Re: autovacuum "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: autovacuum Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>
On 9/20/07, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:38 -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > > In response to Robert Fitzpatrick : > > Why does everyone leave of the IO subsystem? It's almost as if many > > people don't realize that disks exist ... > > > > With 2G of RAM, and a DB that's about 3G, then there's at least a G of > > database data _not_ in memory at any time. As a result, disk speed is > > important, and _could_ be part of your problem. You're not using RAID > > 5 are you? > > Yes, using RAID 5, not good? RAID 5 with hot fix total of 4 drives. All > SATA 80GB drives giving me little under 300GB to work with. RAID5 optimizes for space, not performance or reliability. It gets faster but less reliable as it gets bigger. If you can afford the space RAID-10 is generally preferred. Note however that it is far more important for most general purpose servers to have a RAID controller that is both fast by nature (i.e. not $50.00) and has battery backed cache with write thru turned on. RAID5 on a fast controller with battery backed cache is ok. But I've seen software RAID-10 outrun it for certain loads...
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления
От: Jerry Sievers
Дата: