Thread: start postgresql8 with -o "-i" option
hi,i want to start database which can accept tcp/ip connecttions,now
there is a question:
i start database with the command:
/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -o "-i" -D /usr/local/pgsql/data
and edit pg_hba.conf with adding the line :
host all all 127.0.0.1/32 trust
host rftDatabase globus 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 trust
and after that i cant use psql to connect the database,here is the message:
psql: FATAL: invalid command-line arguments for server process
HINT: Try "postgres --help" for more information.
but if i start with : /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -o -i -D
/usr/local/pgsql/data
then i can connet database psql command,
in two situation i cat connect database with the file:
String url="jdbc:postgresql://xiaohua/rftDatabase";
String user = "globus";
String password = "globus";
try
{
Class.forName("org.postgresql.Driver");
System.out.println("9999999999");
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
System.out.println("Sub ------------: " + ex);
}
the error message is that:
Unable to connect======================
org.postgresql.util.PSQLException: 连接尝试失败。
at org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.openConnectionImpl(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:136)
at org.postgresql.core.ConnectionFactory.openConnection(ConnectionFactory.java:65)
at org.postgresql.jdbc2.AbstractJdbc2Connection.(AbstractJdbc2Connection.java:117)
at org.postgresql.jdbc3.AbstractJdbc3Connection.(AbstractJdbc3Connection.java:30)
at org.postgresql.jdbc3.Jdbc3Connection.(Jdbc3Connection.java:24)
at org.postgresql.Driver.connect(Driver.java:235)
at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:512)
at java.sql.DriverManager.getConnection(DriverManager.java:171)
at TableDisplay.(TableDisplay.java:39)
at TableDisplay.main(TableDisplay.java:158)
Caused by: java.net.SocketException: Invalid argument or cannot assign
requested address
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.socketConnect(Native Method)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.doConnect(PlainSocketImpl.java:305)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connectToAddress(PlainSocketImpl.java:171)
at java.net.PlainSocketImpl.connect(PlainSocketImpl.java:158)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:452)
at java.net.Socket.connect(Socket.java:402)
at java.net.Socket.(Socket.java:309)
at java.net.Socket.(Socket.java:124)
at org.postgresql.core.PGStream.(PGStream.java:58)
at org.postgresql.core.v3.ConnectionFactoryImpl.openConnectionImpl(ConnectionFactoryImpl.java:77)
... 9 more
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException
at TableDisplay.getTable(TableDisplay.java:69)
at TableDisplay.(TableDisplay.java:55)
at TableDisplay.main(TableDisplay.java:158)
the jdbc driver is rightly confirmed and the classpath is right.
this question exists for few days and how should do next?thaks for
your attention!
=?GB2312?B?zfXP/ruq?= <jacob.xiaohua@gmail.com> writes:
> /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -o "-i" -D /usr/local/pgsql/data
That should be just
/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -i -D /usr/local/pgsql/data
You seem to be confusing pg_ctl syntax with postmaster syntax.
regards, tom lane
Thought that v8 started with default tcp availability.
G.
--
"Adopting the position that you are smarter than an automatic
optimization algorithm is generally a good way to achieve less
performance, not more" - Tom Lane.
G.
On 7/29/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
王晓华 <jacob.xiaohua@gmail.com> writes:
> /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -o "-i" -D /usr/local/pgsql/data
That should be just
/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -i -D /usr/local/pgsql/data
You seem to be confusing pg_ctl syntax with postmaster syntax.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
"Adopting the position that you are smarter than an automatic
optimization algorithm is generally a good way to achieve less
performance, not more" - Tom Lane.
Guido Barosio wrote: > Thought that v8 started with default tcp availability. It is _enabled_ by default for connections, but local clients don't use tcp by default. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > G. > > On 7/29/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > =?GB2312?B?zfXP/ruq?= <jacob.xiaohua@gmail.com> writes: > > > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -o "-i" -D /usr/local/pgsql/data > > > > That should be just > > /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -i -D /usr/local/pgsql/data > > > > You seem to be confusing pg_ctl syntax with postmaster syntax. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > > > > -- > "Adopting the position that you are smarter than an automatic > optimization algorithm is generally a good way to achieve less > performance, not more" - Tom Lane. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
All: We have a postgres 7.4 server where we're trying to achieve some speedups. Right now, at least superficially, RAM appears to be the bottleneck -- lots of swaps in and out. There is another consultant beside myself in the mix and he asked this question: can we put the database indexes on a RAM disk? Won't that speed things up? My first instinct is NEVER NEVER NEVER to put any database data in volatile storage like that. But on second thought, I thought I'd ask. Is this crazy? If one did it, how would you handle repopulating the indexes if the RAM disk were lost? Just have a shell script that would do that automatically? Or will postgres 8 rebuild an index if it doesn't find it where it expects? I recognize, or think I do, that PG 8 tablespaces would be required to accomplish this. Would this be insane? Has anyone done it? -------- Steve Lane Vice President Soliant Consulting, Inc. (312) 850-3830 (V) (312) 850-3930 (F) slane@soliantconsulting.com
> RAM appears to be the bottleneck -- lots > of swaps in and out. > can we put the database indexes on a RAM disk? Can you increase the RAM in the machine? I guess I should assume you're maxed out. Rick pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org wrote on 07/29/2005 10:32:28 AM: > All: > > We have a postgres 7.4 server where we're trying to achieve some speedups. > Right now, at least superficially, RAM appears to be the bottleneck -- lots > of swaps in and out. > > There is another consultant beside myself in the mix and he asked this > question: can we put the database indexes on a RAM disk? Won't that speed > things up? > > My first instinct is NEVER NEVER NEVER to put any database data in volatile > storage like that. But on second thought, I thought I'd ask. Is this crazy? > If one did it, how would you handle repopulating the indexes if the RAM > disk were lost? Just have a shell script that would do that automatically? > Or will postgres 8 rebuild an index if it doesn't find it where it expects? > > I recognize, or think I do, that PG 8 tablespaces would be required to > accomplish this. > > Would this be insane? Has anyone done it? > > > -------- > Steve Lane > Vice President > Soliant Consulting, Inc. > (312) 850-3830 (V) > (312) 850-3930 (F) > slane@soliantconsulting.com > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Steve Lane <slane@soliantconsulting.com> writes:
> Or will postgres 8 rebuild an index if it doesn't find it where it expects?
No, but there's always REINDEX.
> I recognize, or think I do, that PG 8 tablespaces would be required to
> accomplish this.
It'd certainly make it a lot easier. Also, it's probably not worth the
pain to try to move system catalog indexes to RAMdisk --- that'll
greatly complicate the restart process. User-table indexes could be
fixed just with REINDEX.
regards, tom lane
Steve Lane wrote: >All: > >We have a postgres 7.4 server where we're trying to achieve some speedups. >Right now, at least superficially, RAM appears to be the bottleneck -- lots >of swaps in and out. > >There is another consultant beside myself in the mix and he asked this >question: can we put the database indexes on a RAM disk? Won't that speed >things up? > > I am quite wary about putting the indexes on a RAM DISK for another reason. You say that RAM is your bottleneck, so putting anything unnecessary in RAM seems like a good way to get less performance rather than more. Additionally you have some overhead in tracking the files, etc. and they will remain in RAM even when they are not used. This leaves the system with less effective RAM for the memory intensive operations. Such a move might make a lot of sense if you had a LOT of RAM but disk I/O was the bottleneck. However, if a lack of RAM is your problem, putting more stuff in RAM doesn't seem very sound to me. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
We're going to build a new server with a bit more RAM -- 8 gigs. I know memory is somehow the bottleneck, but I don't think it's because I have too little. Performance monitors show a lot of swap activity during heavy query load testing, but available RAM is never maxed out, or even close. SOMETHING is starved for RAM, I just don't know what. We are running a web app here and have Apache and PG on the same box. I have PG buffers set very high, about 100K. Data set approaches 3 gigs. My gut feeling is I have RAM to spare, I'm just somehow not efficiently using what I have. I just wanted a gut-check reaction to this idea, and I don't hear anyone saying "NO! NEVER!". What I'm hearing is that it might, or might not, be practical, feasible, maintainable. Thanks for the replies. I'll look more at the memory usage and see what comes up. -- sgl > From: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:50:07 -0700 > To: Steve Lane <slane@soliantconsulting.com> > Cc: <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Indexes on RAM disk = insanity? > > Steve Lane wrote: > >> All: >> >> We have a postgres 7.4 server where we're trying to achieve some speedups. >> Right now, at least superficially, RAM appears to be the bottleneck -- lots >> of swaps in and out. >> >> There is another consultant beside myself in the mix and he asked this >> question: can we put the database indexes on a RAM disk? Won't that speed >> things up? >> >> > I am quite wary about putting the indexes on a RAM DISK for another reason. > > You say that RAM is your bottleneck, so putting anything unnecessary in > RAM seems like a good way to get less performance rather than more. > Additionally you have some overhead in tracking the files, etc. and they > will remain in RAM even when they are not used. This leaves the system > with less effective RAM for the memory intensive operations. > > Such a move might make a lot of sense if you had a LOT of RAM but disk > I/O was the bottleneck. However, if a lack of RAM is your problem, > putting more stuff in RAM doesn't seem very sound to me. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > Metatron Technology Consulting
If I could toss in my $0.02 ... We were provided a 2GB solid-state storage device for testing purposes. Our initial idea was to put the WAL on it, which we thought would greatly improve database performance. While it did help a bit, it wasn't a gigantic performance gain. What finally became the largest performance gain was to put the actual tables and indexes on the device. We were using 7.4 at the time, so we symlinked the files instread of using tablespaces. It was an incredible improvement. Our only issue was that the database, in its entirety, is about 10 GB. You pay roughtly $2K/gig for a solid state storage. Solid state storage is fantastic. No moving parts, MTBF was way way longer than a mechanical drive, and it has battery backup and a tiny mechanical drive to off-load the data onto in case of a power failure. It is a whole world of difference in stability compared to a ramdisk. Its preformance is quite comparible. It is extremely expensive to impliment on a large scale, so I'd spend my time trying to find out what's causing your swap-outs. If indexes in RAM is your final solution, I'd consider the solid state drive as your responsible solution... :) CG --- Steve Lane <slane@soliantconsulting.com> wrote: > We're going to build a new server with a bit more RAM -- 8 gigs. > > I know memory is somehow the bottleneck, but I don't think it's because I > have too little. Performance monitors show a lot of swap activity during > heavy query load testing, but available RAM is never maxed out, or even > close. SOMETHING is starved for RAM, I just don't know what. > > We are running a web app here and have Apache and PG on the same box. I > have PG buffers set very high, about 100K. Data set approaches 3 gigs. > > My gut feeling is I have RAM to spare, I'm just somehow not efficiently > using what I have. > > I just wanted a gut-check reaction to this idea, and I don't hear anyone > saying "NO! NEVER!". What I'm hearing is that it might, or might not, be > practical, feasible, maintainable. > > Thanks for the replies. I'll look more at the memory usage and see what > comes up. > > -- sgl > > > > From: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > > Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:50:07 -0700 > > To: Steve Lane <slane@soliantconsulting.com> > > Cc: <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org> > > Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Indexes on RAM disk = insanity? > > > > Steve Lane wrote: > > > >> All: > >> > >> We have a postgres 7.4 server where we're trying to achieve some speedups. > >> Right now, at least superficially, RAM appears to be the bottleneck -- > lots > >> of swaps in and out. > >> > >> There is another consultant beside myself in the mix and he asked this > >> question: can we put the database indexes on a RAM disk? Won't that speed > >> things up? > >> > >> > > I am quite wary about putting the indexes on a RAM DISK for another reason. > > > > You say that RAM is your bottleneck, so putting anything unnecessary in > > RAM seems like a good way to get less performance rather than more. > > Additionally you have some overhead in tracking the files, etc. and they > > will remain in RAM even when they are not used. This leaves the system > > with less effective RAM for the memory intensive operations. > > > > Such a move might make a lot of sense if you had a LOT of RAM but disk > > I/O was the bottleneck. However, if a lack of RAM is your problem, > > putting more stuff in RAM doesn't seem very sound to me. > > > > Best Wishes, > > Chris Travers > > Metatron Technology Consulting > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com