Thread: Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 on this machine. Before I order, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or recommendations. I have been considering getting a Sun machine... but I don't know if there is a benefit. Also, are there any special considerations when running RAID and dual CPU? You're input is tremendously appreciated! -r Ryan Mahoney CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. ryan@paymentalliance.net t. 718-721-0338 m. 718-490-5464 www.paymentalliance.net --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01
> Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more > robust... looking > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on > running Red Hat 7.1 > on this machine. Maybe a AMD Athlon 1.33GHZ would be better.. It's a very fast CPU and I don't know if PostgreSQL runns faster on dual since I don't know if it can handle the load balancing? Well.. GIG of Ram is never bad... :) SCSI Raid should secure your data also. You should use IBM HDs. They never brake in a million years ;) Well and if.. You habe 5 years garantie... > You're input is tremendously appreciated! Don't know if sun machines help in your case since I don't know suns ;) But I guess others could help you better if they knew some more details about the use of the server. greets
At 7:28 +0200 5/2/2001, Christian Marschalek wrote: >Maybe a AMD Athlon 1.33GHZ would be better.. It's a very fast CPU and I >don't know if PostgreSQL runns faster on dual since I don't know if it >can handle the load balancing? >Well.. GIG of Ram is never bad... :) I would think that dual CPU's would help immensely due to the multiple postgres processes running simultaneously. -- Cafard, mkb@ele.uri.edu qu'est-ce que tu penses? AIM:pr0j2501 Matt Kane's Brain http://mkb.n3.net ===jive turkey http://jive-turkey.n3.net===
I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking at sun. Simply for cost and if you're planning to run linux on it sun support will be shit because they don't have skills in that area. Databases thrive on more spindles, separate system spindles from the db spindles and swap spindles, look at separating index tables from data tables and the WAL. Raid 3 or striping may be more suitable for the WAL (what happens if you loose the WAL?) whereas raid 5 or a combination for 1/5 for data and indexes. The chunk size on a raid set may also be worth pursuing as a means of squeezing better performance from a dedicated db machine. -- Ian Willis Systems Administrator Division of Entomology CSIRO GPO Box 1700 Canberra ACT 2601 ph 02 6246 4391 fax 02 6246 4000 -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Mahoney [mailto:ryan@paymentalliance.net] Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2001 8:35 AM To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 on this machine. Before I order, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or recommendations. I have been considering getting a Sun machine... but I don't know if there is a benefit. Also, are there any special considerations when running RAID and dual CPU? You're input is tremendously appreciated! -r Ryan Mahoney CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. ryan@paymentalliance.net t. 718-721-0338 m. 718-490-5464 www.paymentalliance.net
We just bought a brand new Sun Netra X1. List pice from Sun was $995.00. Yes under one grand. It is a 1U tall box. For once Sun beats Intel prices. It comes with Solaris 8 preinstaled. Basically just plug in and boot. We got a discount to $907. We upgraded the RAM to 1GB (it uses PC133 RAM) We also added a second drive and do a two way mirror. I tested it by pulling the power cable from one drive while Postgres was running. It worked, no crash. The box is not super fast but usfull for many purposes. My test database has 1M rows by 40 columns. With the 1GB RAM perforance is just "OK". I used a dual Xeon box (2MB L2 cache, 1GB RAM, SCSI 160) that was faster then the Sun Netera X1 but cost 6x more. My Ideal box would have multiple CPUs, at least SCSI 160 drives or better a hardware RAID box and 4GB RAM. > -----Original Message----- > From: Willis, Ian (Ento, Canberra) [mailto:Ian.Willis@ento.csiro.au] > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:03 AM > To: 'Ryan Mahoney'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > > > I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking > at sun. Simply > for cost and if you're planning to run linux on it sun > support will be shit > because they don't have skills in that area. > Databases thrive on more spindles, separate system spindles > from the db > spindles and swap spindles, look at separating index tables > from data tables > and the WAL. > Raid 3 or striping may be more suitable for the WAL (what > happens if you > loose the WAL?) whereas raid 5 or a combination for 1/5 for data and > indexes. The chunk size on a raid set may also be worth > pursuing as a means > of squeezing better performance from a dedicated db machine. > > -- > Ian Willis > Systems Administrator > Division of Entomology CSIRO > GPO Box 1700 > Canberra ACT 2601 > ph 02 6246 4391 > fax 02 6246 4000 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ryan Mahoney [mailto:ryan@paymentalliance.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2001 8:35 AM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran > between 30% an > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a > Penguin Computing > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more > robust... looking > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on > running Red Hat 7.1 > on this machine. > > Before I order, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or > recommendations. I have been considering getting a Sun > machine... but I > don't know if there is a benefit. Also, are there any special > considerations when running RAID and dual CPU? > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > -r > > Ryan Mahoney > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > ryan@paymentalliance.net > t. 718-721-0338 > m. 718-490-5464 > www.paymentalliance.net > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: 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 >
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > on this machine. I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. gh *snip* > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > -r > > Ryan Mahoney > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > ryan@paymentalliance.net > t. 718-721-0338 > m. 718-490-5464 > www.paymentalliance.net > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling FreeBSD benefits. BTW, the input on hardware was very useful. I ordered a Dell today w/ gig ram, dual 1ghz PIII and Raid 1 18gig scsi hard drives. I'm excited! -r At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: >On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > on this machine. > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > >gh > >*snip* > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > > > -r > > > > Ryan Mahoney > > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > > ryan@paymentalliance.net > > t. 718-721-0338 > > m. 718-490-5464 > > www.paymentalliance.net > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl > > > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01
GH <grasshacker@over-yonder.net> writes: > On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > on this machine. > > I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. Bah. Spare us the flamebait. Some of us are running PG on RHL quite happily. [FreeBSD is great too.] -Doug -- The rain man gave me two cures; he said jump right in, The first was Texas medicine--the second was just railroad gin, And like a fool I mixed them, and it strangled up my mind, Now people just get uglier, and I got no sense of time... --Dylan
On Wed, 2 May 2001, GH wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an
> > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing
> > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware.
> >
> > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking
> > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1
> > on this machine.
>
> I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running
> something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system
> and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment.
You know - there's other Linux distributions than Red Hat - you don't
haveto use FreeBSD... may I cordially suggest SuSE - we use 7.0 and 7.1 on
all our servers, with no stabillity issues whatsoever.
--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > on this machine. > > I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. I think I have to agree on that one. Especially Linux's ext2 vs. BSD's UFS. Of course, I assume you are asking for an optimal solution, not just something that will work. Linux will work fine for most people. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Maybe late to ask this question - but - does PG benefit from multi processor? Is it dependant on the OS? And which OS' are most tuned for this purpose? As always thanks in advance! -r Ryan Mahoney CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. ryan@paymentalliance.net t. 718-721-0338 m. 718-490-5464 www.paymentalliance.net --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > FreeBSD benefits. FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more enjoyable to work with than RedHat. If you had ever seen the power and beauty of FreeBSD, you would not continue using RedHat by choice. You probably need to see it to believe it. I encourage you to check it out sometime, but you should have no problem at all running PostgreSQL on RedHat. I'm out. gh > > BTW, the input on hardware was very useful. I ordered a Dell today w/ gig > ram, dual 1ghz PIII and Raid 1 18gig scsi hard drives. I'm excited! > > -r > > At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: > > >On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > > on this machine. > > > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > > > > >gh > > > >*snip* > > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > > > > > -r > > > > > > Ryan Mahoney > > > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > > > ryan@paymentalliance.net > > > t. 718-721-0338 > > > m. 718-490-5464 > > > www.paymentalliance.net > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01
> Maybe late to ask this question - but - does PG benefit from multi
> processor? Is it dependant on the OS? And which OS' are most tuned for
> this purpose?
>
> As always thanks in advance!
From FAQ:
We handle each user connection by creating a Unix process.
Backend processes share data buffers and locking information.
With multiple CPU's, multiple backends can easily run on
different CPU's.<BR>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> Maybe late to ask this question - but - does PG benefit from multi > processor? Though it's not threaded, multiple backends will use multiple processors . >Is it dependant on the OS? Yes. The OS has to allow use of the second (or third or fourth) processor. Most modern Unix-like OSes will have this feature... OpenBSD is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that doesn't have SMP support. >And which OS' are most tuned for this purpose? Tuned for SMP? Well, different OS's handle that in many different ways so that's a question which requires a pretty long answer to cover all the possibilities.. I use FreeBSD and Linux (though mainly FreeBSD) on my SMP boxes and both do a fine job. -Mitch
While I certainly have to agree with all of the points regarding FreeBSD's ease of use, and security I have one major critisism. Unfortunately there aren't any great java ports for FreeBSD. Linux also enjoys the attention of many bigger players such as IBM, Compaq. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "GH" <grasshacker@over-yonder.net> To: "Ryan Mahoney" <ryan@paymentalliance.net> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > > FreeBSD benefits. > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. If you had ever seen the power and > beauty of FreeBSD, you would not continue using RedHat by choice. > > You probably need to see it to believe it. > I encourage you to check it out sometime, but you should have no problem > at all running PostgreSQL on RedHat. > > > I'm out. > > gh > > > > > BTW, the input on hardware was very useful. I ordered a Dell today w/ gig > > ram, dual 1ghz PIII and Raid 1 18gig scsi hard drives. I'm excited! > > > > -r > > > > At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: > > > > >On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > > > on this machine. > > > > > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > > >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > > >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > > > > > > > >gh > > > > > >*snip* > > > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > > > > > > > -r > > > > > > > > Ryan Mahoney > > > > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > > > > ryan@paymentalliance.net > > > > t. 718-721-0338 > > > > m. 718-490-5464 > > > > www.paymentalliance.net > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--- > > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > >Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > >
I think that all this fat should be put on the fire. A nice performance test on the same high end hardware would be good. Is there a test suite that would suit? Would anyone expect more than a 5% difference in performance between the OS's even using the dreaded ext2 and not the reiserfs or SGI XFS. There could there be wagers between the loudest in both camps? A 5% betting premium could apply with all proceeds going to the postgresl development team :) My preference for using linux is that I like the licence and spirit of linux more and assuming that the performance difference is negligable I'll stick with it. Similiarly many find that the BSD licence and associated community's stricter development methodologies appeals more and they too will stick with that whilst there is a negligable performance difference. But realistly after using both I find that you can make one choke while the other sings if you chose your test carefully enough and currently they get similiar performance results on most general application tests. -- Ian Willis -----Original Message----- From: GH [mailto:grasshacker@over-yonder.net] Sent: Thursday, 3 May 2001 10:53 AM To: Ryan Mahoney Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > FreeBSD benefits. FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more enjoyable to work with than RedHat. If you had ever seen the power and beauty of FreeBSD, you would not continue using RedHat by choice. You probably need to see it to believe it. I encourage you to check it out sometime, but you should have no problem at all running PostgreSQL on RedHat. I'm out. gh > > BTW, the input on hardware was very useful. I ordered a Dell today w/ gig > ram, dual 1ghz PIII and Raid 1 18gig scsi hard drives. I'm excited! > > -r > > At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: > > >On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:35:13PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an > > > 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing > > > 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware. > > > > > > Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking > > > into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1 > > > on this machine. > > > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > > > > >gh > > > >*snip* > > > You're input is tremendously appreciated! > > > > > > -r > > > > > > Ryan Mahoney > > > CTO, Payment Alliance, Inc. > > > ryan@paymentalliance.net > > > t. 718-721-0338 > > > m. 718-490-5464 > > > www.paymentalliance.net > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl > > > > > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.250 / Virus Database: 123 - Release Date: 4/18/01 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> Unfortunately there aren't any great java ports for FreeBSD.
Check out the linux compatibility java support
linux-jdk13
I've found it to be about 95% as fast as something running
under native linux, but I get the perk of BSDs memory management and I
can typically run 1.4 times the apps/processes under BSD (linux dies).
With that, I gave up on the extra 5% speed and went for the higher
load and haven't looked back. -sc
> Linux also enjoys the attention of many bigger players such as IBM, Compaq.
Let it... I'd rather have everyone focus on Linux so long as
the emmulation continues to be quick. If IBM tried to release stuff
for both Linux and BSD, it'd tack another week-month onto their
development time. Eventually they'll wisen up, but for now,
emmulation's paved my way to gold. -sc
> Dave
Attachment
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>Especially Linux's ext2 vs. BSD's UFS.
Hmm.. Could you elaborate on that?
Commonly perceived problems with ext2:
- Lack of journalling
This can be fixed by upgrading to ext3, or switching to ReiserFS,
XFS or JFS (ReiserFS works well in my experience, I've not tried
the others yet).
- Slowness in handling large directories.
ReiserFS was designed to handle this well.
- Lack of synchronous updates.
This is a misconception: simply use the "sync" mount option.
Ray
--
THEY planted The Lone Gunmen to MIND CONTROL the public into seeing TRUTH
SEEKERS as CONSPIRACY NUTS.
GH <grasshacker@over-yonder.net> writes: > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > > FreeBSD benefits. > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. Hardly. Now, could you stop your uniformed flamebaiting please? FreeBSD is nice in some respects (and not in others), but coming with FUD like you are doesn't do anyone any good. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
GH wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > At 06:52 PM 5/2/01 -0500, GH wrote: > > >I think that anyone whose opinion matters would recommend running > > >something *other* than RedHat. FreeBSD is an excellent operating system > > >and is well suited to a PostgreSQL environment. > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. What > > do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to run RH > > 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some compelling > > FreeBSD benefits. > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. If you had ever seen the power and > beauty of FreeBSD, you would not continue using RedHat by choice. <rant mode=perturbed acid=tartaric concentration=100> I am offended highly by this arrogance. 'Anyone whose opinion matters' indeed. I have over a decade of experience with *nix, both SysV and BSD styles. Both work. Both are stable. Both are fast. I have personal experience with *nix, from an ancient VAX 11/750 running 4.2BSD to an AT&T (Convergent) UnixPC (3B1) running SysVR2 to an AT&T 3B20 running Unix V7 to an Apollo DomainOS network running their SysVR3/4.3BSD hybrid to PC's running Coherent to Linux 0.13 all the way up to Red Hat's 4.0-7.1. Thomas Lockhart is one of the core group -- and he runs Linux. Mandrake, at that. His opinion would matter. This SysV vs BSD war is just ridiculous. I know -- Linux is the target now, not SysV -- big whoopee. Same war -- different antagonists. BOTH systems work -- both systems are (as of RH7.1) relatively secure out of the box. Have _you_ actually used Red Hat 7.1? I have actually _used_ FreeBSD -- and I prefer Red Hat by choice. And I prefer to have that choice available. </rant> > You probably need to see it to believe it. > I encourage you to check it out sometime, but you should have no problem > at all running PostgreSQL on RedHat. As one who has run a mission-critical intranet on Red Hat Linux + PostgreSQL since the days of PostgreSQL 6.1.1, I can heartily recommend Red Hat, properly set up, to anyone. I can just as easily recommend FreeBSD. It really doesn't matter -- both systems are free (in rms's sense of the word), both systems have reasonable performance, both systems can be made reasonably secure. FreeBSD can be made, through sysadmin neglect, as insecure as any Red Hat release has ever been. And Red Hat can be made as secure as any release of FreeBSD has ever been. <plug mode=nohype> Linux kernel 2.4 is a serious performance contender on UP and SMP machines, BTW. :-) </plug> -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Thursday 03 May 2001 11:58 am, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > GH <grasshacker@over-yonder.net> writes: > > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. > > > What do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to > > > run RH 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some > > > compelling FreeBSD benefits. > > > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. > > Hardly. Now, could you stop your uniformed flamebaiting please? > FreeBSD is nice in some respects (and not in others), but coming with > FUD like you are doesn't do anyone any good. I hate to say it but saying that FreeBSD might be better than Red Hat is hardly flamebait or FUD. And it doesn't necessarily seem uninformed to me (why would he say it's more enjoyable if he wasn't informed - i.e. hadn't experienced it?). (disclaimer - I don't work for any OS company, and I don't use FreeBSD, although I've thought about it.) Michelle -- ------------ Michelle Murrain, Ph.D. President Norwottuck Technology Resources mpm@norwottuck.com http://www.norwottuck.com
Michelle Murrain <mpm@norwottuck.com> writes: > On Thursday 03 May 2001 11:58 am, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > GH <grasshacker@over-yonder.net> writes: > > > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. > > > > What do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to > > > > run RH 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some > > > > compelling FreeBSD benefits. > > > > > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > > > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. > > > > Hardly. Now, could you stop your uniformed flamebaiting please? > > FreeBSD is nice in some respects (and not in others), but coming with > > FUD like you are doesn't do anyone any good. > > I hate to say it but saying that FreeBSD might be better than Red Hat is > hardly flamebait or FUD. Those others, like "stable" and "secure". "Enjoyable" is obviously subjective (FreeBSD isn't very enjoyable for me, who has used Linux and Solaris extensively and much prefer SysV to BSD). -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
Since I'd rather have a screwdriver than a compiler, I'll jump in on a
response to the original message....
> Our db server running 7.1 got *torched* today, system ran between 30% an
> 80% CPU all day! Right now the server is running on a Penguin Computing
> 800mhz PIII w/ 128 ram and IDE hardware.
>
> Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more robust... looking
> into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on running Red Hat 7.1
> on this machine.
>
> Before I order, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or
> recommendations. I have been considering getting a Sun machine... but I
> don't know if there is a benefit. Also, are there any special
> considerations when running RAID and dual CPU?
>
> You're input is tremendously appreciated!
I'll address the questions in a hap-hazard order....
1. Sun hardware? The benefit of Sun hardware is when you need a greater
sheer capacity than you can get with the higher-end Intel systems. Of
course, Alphas are also a good thing to consider when you're in that range.
In a single- or dual-cpu system, Intel systems do fine unless you're just
looking to burn money, offering a better price/performance ratio, and
*possibly* higher overall performance compared to a single/dual Sun or
Alpha.
(If you don't like that last statement, I'm sorry. In my experience, that
has *occasionally* been the case.)
2. Disk type - use SCSI, not IDE. IDE takes too much CPU. If you're just
trying to copy a file, that's not bad - but if you're trying to process DB
queries at the same time, it's bad.
3. RAID - it's a great thing for speed and redundancy. Our main DB server
uses a RAID 5 array with a "hot spare". Since we have enough RAM to keep
the DB files in cache, though, the speed isn't that much of a factor, the
disk lights only blink occasionally. Having cache on the RAID controller
also helps alleviate disk writes. If you don't need the redundancy, you
can get very good speed improvements by just using a lot of RAM and turning
off fsync() - that way, you don't hit the disks much at all.
4. CPU's - you may not need a 1 GHz. Find the "sweet spot", which is
probably an 866 or 933. The difference won't be that great. If the
difference between a 933 and a 1 GHz chip is going to make or break it, you
probably need a quad-CPU solution to allow for growth and expansion.
5. Motherboard - if you want dual P3's, and more than 512 MB of RAM,
consider the Asus CUV4X-D boards, we use several of them, and they're
terrific, stable performers.
Once you've got a gig of RAM and you're using SCSI disks (preferably
RAID), the CPU's tend to be the bottleneck. On our system (4 Xeon 700's,
RAID, 512 MB), the disk lights only blink *occasionally*, and we have
hundreds of megs of file cache, no swapping. We're going to increase the
RAM soon, but that's only because our database is going to grow
considerably, and we want to make sure that we keep all of the DB files in
disk cache. In terms of price-for-performance, Suns and Alphas aren't even
in the same ballpark as this machine. Of course, Intel hardware can only
take you so far, and then Suns, Alphas, and the like are the only options.
steve
On Thursday 03 May 2001 04:48 pm, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > Those others, like "stable" and "secure". "Enjoyable" is obviously > subjective (FreeBSD isn't very enjoyable for me, who has used Linux > and Solaris extensively and much prefer SysV to BSD). OK, I'll buy that the post was a bit much - my point was just that comparisons of flavors of UNIX seem, IMHO to be pointless, and flinging accusations of FUD are even more pointless. You can make just about any flavor of UNIX (unless it's under serious development, or seriously flawed) about as stable and secure as any other. Unlike comparisons of very different OSes (Windows vs Unix vs MacOS), comparisons of UNIX seem, to me, to come down to personal preference. (Although, many would argue the same for the other comparisons as well). Let's save the FUD accusations for much more serious matters. Michelle -- ------------ Michelle Murrain, Ph.D. President Norwottuck Technology Resources mpm@norwottuck.com http://www.norwottuck.com
"Steve Wolfe" <steve@iboats.com> writes: > 2. Disk type - use SCSI, not IDE. IDE takes too much CPU. If you're just > trying to copy a file, that's not bad - but if you're trying to process DB > queries at the same time, it's bad. I'd drop SCSI and spend (some of) the difference for more RAM. IDE performance when using DMA isn't bad at all. > 4. CPU's - you may not need a 1 GHz. Find the "sweet spot", which is > probably an 866 or 933. The difference won't be that great. If the > difference between a 933 and a 1 GHz chip is going to make or break it, you > probably need a quad-CPU solution to allow for growth and expansion. As a general advice, that would be a good one... but the 1 GHz chips are rather cheap nowadays, as they are more than a year old. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
> > 2. Disk type - use SCSI, not IDE. IDE takes too much CPU. If you're just > > trying to copy a file, that's not bad - but if you're trying to process DB > > queries at the same time, it's bad. > > I'd drop SCSI and spend (some of) the difference for more RAM. IDE > performance when using DMA isn't bad at all. Myself, I'd still use SCSI. IDE does well when you're only doing one transaction at a time, but when you're trying to do two things at once, responsiveness gets abominable. SCSI does much better in that regard... and since this is supposed to be a heavily-used db server, I imagine that there will either be *nothing* hitting the disk (enough RAM), or *lots* of things hitting it at once. When our company first started out, we used to run our server on an IDE drive, I still have nightmares about how badly it sucked. ; ) > > 4. CPU's - you may not need a 1 GHz. Find the "sweet spot", which is > > probably an 866 or 933. The difference won't be that great. If the > > difference between a 933 and a 1 GHz chip is going to make or break it, you > > probably need a quad-CPU solution to allow for growth and expansion. > > As a general advice, that would be a good one... but the 1 GHz chips > are rather cheap nowadays, as they are more than a year old. You're right, the GHz chips have dropped considerably since I last priced them out. steve
Hey guys, Has everyone forgotten PalmOS? ;-> + Justin Michelle Murrain wrote: > > On Thursday 03 May 2001 11:58 am, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > GH <grasshacker@over-yonder.net> writes: > > > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth: > > > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC. > > > > What do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intention is to > > > > run RH 7.1, although I can surely be swayed if you can offer some > > > > compelling FreeBSD benefits. > > > > > > FreeBSD is out-of-the-box more secure, more stable, and generally more > > > enjoyable to work with than RedHat. > > > > Hardly. Now, could you stop your uniformed flamebaiting please? > > FreeBSD is nice in some respects (and not in others), but coming with > > FUD like you are doesn't do anyone any good. > > I hate to say it but saying that FreeBSD might be better than Red Hat is > hardly flamebait or FUD. And it doesn't necessarily seem uninformed to me > (why would he say it's more enjoyable if he wasn't informed - i.e. hadn't > experienced it?). > > (disclaimer - I don't work for any OS company, and I don't use FreeBSD, > although I've thought about it.) > > Michelle > -- > ------------ > Michelle Murrain, Ph.D. > President > Norwottuck Technology Resources > mpm@norwottuck.com > http://www.norwottuck.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
At 03:11 PM 03-05-2001 -0600, Steve Wolfe wrote: > > Since I'd rather have a screwdriver than a compiler, I'll jump in on a >response to the original message.... Great at least a relevant response ;). > Once you've got a gig of RAM and you're using SCSI disks (preferably >RAID), the CPU's tend to be the bottleneck. On our system (4 Xeon 700's, >RAID, 512 MB), the disk lights only blink *occasionally*, and we have >hundreds of megs of file cache, no swapping. We're going to increase the I'm wondering are the CPU's really the bottleneck here, or is the main RAM bandwidth the bottleneck? How does one tell? (at least without comparing performance by swapping in and out CPUs of different speeds - too bad most CPU clocks are now locked multipliers). Because I thought that once you got 1GB of ram AND your whole DB fits on it, the bottleneck is likely to be the 133MHz memory bus not the 1GHz cpu. E.g. a faster CPU won't help much unless the indexes or "to be sorted" result sets fit in the 256K/512K 2nd level cache. In comparison I believe SPARCs have 8MB of 2nd level cache - which should be helpful for DB stuff. So, I was wondering what the performance would be like if you had 266MHz DDR RAM instead. Anyone thinking of running postgresql on Athlon servers with 266MHz DDR RAM? Any pgbench figures (with fsync off)? Hmm, any interleaved DDR RAM motherboards out there- when you have 533MHz memory bandwidth the CPU caches are just to improve latency ;). Cheerio, Link.
A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual P3 with 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running on 2 IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and the idle CPU's went down to 0-2%. This was a tremendous difference. I feel SCSI is a must. I would like to try one of those new Promise Supertrak ATA 100 RAID 5 cards or hear from someone who has tried one... Anyone? I read they have the same onboard CPU as the Adaptec ultra160 RAID 5 card and can have up to twice as much onboard cache (128mb) as the SCSI counterpart. It is true hardware level raid 5 with a hot spare and each of the up to 6 drives is on its own interface. I would think this would alleviate the onboard IDE / CPU burn and improve the IDE performance tremendously. The cost of the Promise Supertrak is over $100 more than the Adaptec ultra 160 card, but the ATA 100 drives are very inexpensive compared to SCSI. I found that you could get more than 4x the space for 25% less money with IDE ATA 100 RAID 5. If this is true... IDE RAID 5 might be a good alternative to SCSI. As for the Intel vs Sparc, well I use both. The Intel's are great when you need Windows but when you need performance the Intel just can't keep up with the stability, raw power or speed of Solaris 8 on a Sun machine. As for the cost, we use HP dual 700 CPU x86 Netservers which cost about $30,000ea and with the Sun Developer program we saved 40% on our Sun machines which put the Sun E220 dual CPU in the same ballpark only it will run circles around the HP and I think anyone who develops with Java can become a Sun Developer. Steve Ackerman _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
If I may just chip in here... There is a new kid on the block: ieee1394 RAID http://www.granitedigital.com/ Anyone have any experience with this? I know it is pretty new - kernel 2.4. It does seem to be the best of both worlds: cheap disks and 120 MB/s speed (advertized) As for those OS wars - are there any serious Linux sysadmins who don't have a copy of "Linux System Security" next to the server? Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html
Hi all, When I checked the Promise site about a week and a half ago, there wasn't any mention of Linux support, and doing a quick search for it around the Net didn't find any Linux support for this controller either. Does anyone know of working Linux drivers for it? Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Steve Ackerman wrote: > > A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual P3 with > 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were > running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running on 2 > IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and the idle > CPU's went down to 0-2%. This was a tremendous difference. I feel SCSI > is a must. > > I would like to try one of those new Promise Supertrak ATA 100 RAID 5 > cards or hear from someone who has tried one... Anyone? I read they have > the same onboard CPU as the Adaptec ultra160 RAID 5 card and can have up > to twice as much onboard cache (128mb) as the SCSI counterpart. It is > true hardware level raid 5 with a hot spare and each of the up to 6 > drives is on its own interface. I would think this would alleviate the > onboard IDE / CPU burn and improve the IDE performance tremendously. > > The cost of the Promise Supertrak is over $100 more than the Adaptec > ultra 160 card, but the ATA 100 drives are very inexpensive compared to > SCSI. I found that you could get more than 4x the space for 25% less > money with IDE ATA 100 RAID 5. > > If this is true... IDE RAID 5 might be a good alternative to SCSI. > > As for the Intel vs Sparc, well I use both. The Intel's are great when > you need Windows but when you need performance the Intel just can't keep > up with the stability, raw power or speed of Solaris 8 on a Sun machine. > As for the cost, we use HP dual 700 CPU x86 Netservers which cost about > $30,000ea and with the Sun Developer program we saved 40% on our Sun > machines which put the Sun E220 dual CPU in the same ballpark only it > will run circles around the HP and I think anyone who develops with Java > can become a Sun Developer. > > Steve Ackerman > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
On 04 May 2001 23:38:04 +1000, Justin Clift wrote: > When I checked the Promise site about a week and a half ago, there > wasn't any mention of Linux support, and doing a quick search for it > around the Net didn't find any Linux support for this controller either. > > Does anyone know of working Linux drivers for it? Guess who has one... The driver is a real pain to install because binary only. The thing does smoke when it runs though! Some IDE stuff trashed my server and I blamed the Promise card when in fact it was a bad IDE port on the MB. I have it in another machine now. There are issues with kernel 2.4.x read Alan Cox's ramblings on it. Cheers Tony Grant -- RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html
> As for those OS wars - are there any serious Linux sysadmins who don't > have a copy of "Linux System Security" next to the server? I run Linux on everything, and I don't have a copy of that book next to any of my machines. Then again, I don't run Redhat. John -- # John Madden weez@freelists.org ICQ: 2EB9EA # FreeLists, Free mailing lists for all: http://www.freelists.org # UNIX Systems Engineer, Ivy Tech State College: http://www.ivy.tec.in.us # Linux, Apache, Perl and C: All the best things in life are free!
> > A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual P3 with > > 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were > > running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running on 2 > > IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and the idle > > CPU's went down to 0-2%. This was a tremendous difference. I feel SCSI > > is a must. I have a suspicion that you didn't try using hdparm first to tune up your disks. Have you set them up with 32-bit transfers, UDMA, and unmasked interrupts? I am running a single 40 GB Maxtor 5400 UDMA/66 disk, and even when I am stress testing the database, about 96% on each CPU goes to user-space postmaster processes. The system CPU consumption rarely goes above 4%. And FYI, I am running a dual 1 GHz P3 on a VP6. The IDE disk is connected to thepromise controller. I haven't tried it on the VIA, but I suspect the results would be the same. The only way I can see your CPU consumption going to 20% is if you are using PIO, and haven't tuned up your disks. > > I would like to try one of those new Promise Supertrak ATA 100 RAID 5 > > cards or hear from someone who has tried one... Anyone? I read they have > > the same onboard CPU as the Adaptec ultra160 RAID 5 card and can have up > > to twice as much onboard cache (128mb) as the SCSI counterpart. It is > > true hardware level raid 5 with a hot spare and each of the up to 6 > > drives is on its own interface. I would think this would alleviate the > > onboard IDE / CPU burn and improve the IDE performance tremendously. > > > > The cost of the Promise Supertrak is over $100 more than the Adaptec > > ultra 160 card, but the ATA 100 drives are very inexpensive compared to > > SCSI. I found that you could get more than 4x the space for 25% less > > money with IDE ATA 100 RAID 5. > > > > If this is true... IDE RAID 5 might be a good alternative to SCSI. UDMA without raid is already a good alternative to SCSI. > > As for the Intel vs Sparc, well I use both. The Intel's are great when > > you need Windows but when you need performance the Intel just can't keep > > up with the stability, raw power or speed of Solaris 8 on a Sun machine. I'd dispute that. Admittedly, I haven't used the latest and greatest in Sun hardware due to cost issues, but my experience says that Linux+Intel is pretty much as good as SPARC+Solaris as far as stability goes. I suppose for heavy number crunching, the late UltraSPARC CPUs are much better, and Sun systems to generally feel more responsive than standard PCs. It all depends on how much you want to spend, and what sort of performance are you after. > > As for the cost, we use HP dual 700 CPU x86 Netservers which cost about > > $30,000ea and with the Sun Developer program we saved 40% on our Sun > > machines which put the Sun E220 dual CPU in the same ballpark only it > > will run circles around the HP and I think anyone who develops with Java > > can become a Sun Developer. $30,000 each??? And it is only a dual 700 P3? You are joking right? I have just built a dual 1 GHz P3 server with 1 GB of PC133 CAS2, and everything else for signifficantly less than $1,500! Where did the remaining $28,500 go? 4 TB hardware RAID5 disk array with 1 GB of cache and 10 hot spare disks? Because that would cost you roughly $28K... Regards. Gordan
> > As for those OS wars - are there any serious Linux sysadmins who don't > > have a copy of "Linux System Security" next to the server? > > I run Linux on everything, and I don't have a copy of that book next to > any of my machines. Then again, I don't run Redhat. I don't have a copy of it either, and I do run RedHat. The trick is to disable the services you don't use, and have portsentry firewall all the ports. :-) Regards. Gordan
> > > A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual > P3 with > > > 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were > > > running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running > on 2 > > > IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and > the idle > > > CPU's went down to 0-2%. This was a tremendous difference. I feel > SCSI > > > is a must. > > I have a suspicion that you didn't try using hdparm first to tune up > your disks. Have you set them up with 32-bit transfers, UDMA, and > unmasked interrupts? I am running a single 40 GB Maxtor 5400 UDMA/66 > disk, and even when I am stress testing the database, about 96% on > each CPU goes to user-space postmaster processes. The system CPU > consumption rarely goes above 4%. And FYI, I am running a dual 1 GHz > P3 on a VP6. The IDE disk is connected to thepromise controller. I > haven't tried it on the VIA, but I suspect the results would be the > same. The only way I can see your CPU consumption going to 20% is if > you are using PIO, and haven't tuned up your disks. I will ditto that. IDE is terrible _unless_ you are using DMA for data transfer. Without DMA, the CPU is involved in transfering all data to/from the drive, hence your 20% CPU utiliation and terrible performance. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
However Linux works better on SMP. As I know FreeBSD still used global kernel lock (as Linux 2.2) on SMP... "Sean Chittenden" <sean-pgsql-general@chittenden.org> �������/�������� � �������� ���������: news:20010502193726.N98891@rand.tgd.net... > --6iXXu7NwgEt9u5a7 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > > > Unfortunately there aren't any great java ports for FreeBSD. > > Check out the linux compatibility java support > > linux-jdk13 > > I've found it to be about 95% as fast as something running > under native linux, but I get the perk of BSDs memory management and I > can typically run 1.4 times the apps/processes under BSD (linux dies). > With that, I gave up on the extra 5% speed and went for the higher > load and haven't looked back. -sc > > > Linux also enjoys the attention of many bigger players such as IBM, Compaq. > > Let it... I'd rather have everyone focus on Linux so long as > the emmulation continues to be quick. If IBM tried to release stuff > for both Linux and BSD, it'd tack another week-month onto their > development time. Eventually they'll wisen up, but for now, > emmulation's paved my way to gold. -sc > > > Dave > > --6iXXu7NwgEt9u5a7 > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > Content-Disposition: inline > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Comment: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> > > iEYEARECAAYFAjrwxGYACgkQn09c7x7d+q20dgCeOnloija0eJX7XVU2YTsJXo1H > qiMAmgJiVtyO8ApRJ3oOWRS8xZR18XFR > =eN/L > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > --6iXXu7NwgEt9u5a7 > Content-Type: text/plain > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: 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 > > --6iXXu7NwgEt9u5a7--