Re: Tuning PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Alexander Priem |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Tuning PostgreSQL |
Date | |
Msg-id | 010801c34f7d$87f39620$b696a8c0@APR Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Tuning PostgreSQL ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
Responses |
Re: Tuning PostgreSQL
("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
|
List | pgsql-performance |
So where can I set the noatime & data=writeback variables? They are not PostgreSQL settings, but rather Linux settings, right? Where can I find these? Kind regards, Alexander Priem. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> To: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning PostgreSQL > On 21 Jul 2003 at 18:09, Ang Chin Han wrote: > > > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > > > On 21 Jul 2003 at 11:23, Alexander Priem wrote: > > > > >>I use ext3 filesystem, which probably is not the best performer, is it? > > > > > > No. You also need to check ext2, reiser and XFS. There is no agreement between > > > users as in what works best. You need to benchmark and decide. > > > > Need? Maybe I'm a bit disillusioned, but are the performances between > > the filesystems differ so much as to warrant the additional effort? > > (e.g. XFS doesn't come with Red Hat 9 -- you'll have to patch the > > source, and compile it yourself). > > Well, the benchmarking is not to prove which filesystem is fastest and feature > rich but to find out which one suits your needs best. > > > Benchmarking it properly before deployment is tough: are the test load > > on the db/fs representative of actual load? Is 0.5% reduction in CPU > > usage worth it? Did you test for catastrophic failure by pulling the > > plug during write operations (ext2) to test if the fs can handle it? Is > > the code base for the particular fs stable enough? Obscure bugs in the fs? > > Well, that is what that 'benchmark' is supposed to find out. Call it pre- > deployment testing or whatever other fancy name one sees fit. But it is a must > in almost all serious usage. > > > For the record, we tried several filesystems, but stuck with 2.4.9's > > ext3 (Red Hat Advanced Server). Didn't hit a load high enough for the > > filesystem choices to matter after all. :( > > Good for you. You have time at hand to find out which one suits you best. Do > the testing before you have load that needs another FS..:-) > > Bye > Shridhar > > -- > It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable. -- Spock, "The Enterprise" Incident", stardate 5027.3 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match
pgsql-performance by date: