On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Jason Long
<mailing.list@supernovasoftware.com> wrote:
> A faster server.
> Well the sever is plenty fast. It has 2 quad core 1600MHz FSB 3.0 GHz Xeon
> 5472 CPUs and a very light workload.
A few things.
That doesn't make a fast server. The disk i/o subsystem makes a fast
server. And you've mentioned nothing of that yet. If you've got a 16
SAS Disk RAID -10 array on a fast RAID controller with battery backed
cache, you've got a fast database server.
If you've got a single SATA drive or a mirror set of two SATA drives,
you do not have a fast database server.
> My statement about the time is that it has never taken that long. Ever.
> Not even close.
I wonder if you're getting a lot of bloating in your indexes from the
full vacuums. Is there a reason you're running full vacuums over
regular vacuums? While there are quite a few circumstances where full
vacuums are the right answer, most of the time they are not, at least
not on a regular basis.
A lot of things can cause your current vacuums to run slow. Maybe
there's a competing regular autovacuum that's kicked in at the same
time, someone is backing up the database, and so on.
As for :
> However, this is about the most anal list ever.
> I see so many emails on here about people complaining regarding the proper way to reply
> or post to the list.
That's because many of us receive hundreds of emails a week, and if
everyone starts sending html email,using bouncing email addresses, or
sending emails to 5 lists at once, things can get out of hand pretty
quickly.
Since your email agent is sending multi-part mime email with regular
text and html email, there's no real reason to complain, as any agent
worth its salt can be set to show only the text part. I'm pretty sure
the email archive process also lops off the html part before storing
it.
Busy lists tend to be anal. Wanna get a bunch of people mad at once?
Break the rules on the lkml. We're a bunch of fuzzy little kittens
playing with balls of yarn by comparison. :)
