Thread: Testers needed ...
Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they notice any differences in speed? Thanks ...
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they > notice any differences in speed? Marc, A dramatic increase in performance. Gavin
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they
> notice any differences in speed?
Yup. It's usable again! What did you do?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they
> > notice any differences in speed?
>
> Yup. It's usable again! What did you do?
Got more RAM installed :) The archives have a buffer cache right now of
1.5Gig, and will be jumped to a full 3Gig as soon as the "special RAM"
gets in ... Rackspace had to special order in some RAM to bring it from
3Gig->4gig ... I'm suspecting they needed to switch to low-voltage RAM for
that, which they didn't have in stock ...
I've also moved the indices to one file system, while leaving the tables
themselves on the other (this box is limited to 2 hard drives,
unfortunately), which seems to be doign a better job of keeping disk I/O
down a bit ...
Am currently rebuilding the indices, so *everything* isn't in there yet,
but we're up to:
Database statistics
Status Expired Total
-----------------------------
0 61548 61734 Not indexed yet
200 0 66252 OK
404 0 8 Not found
-----------------------------
Total 61548 127994
and climbing fast ...
Oh, and, of course, its running on v7.2.1 now, which means that VACUUMs no
longer lock up the search ... last night, I had something like 367
indexers pounding away at the database *and* a VACUUM running *and* did a
search in <2 minutes (considering that is 367 simultaneous and active
connections to the database, I'm impressed) ...
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> [...]
> Oh, and, of course, its running on v7.2.1 now, which means that VACUUMs no
> longer lock up the search ... last night, I had something like 367
> indexers pounding away at the database *and* a VACUUM running *and* did a
> search in <2 minutes (considering that is 367 simultaneous and active
> connections to the database, I'm impressed) ...
Who said PostgreSQL doesn't scale?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
En Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:41:19 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> escribió:
> Could some ppl test out archives.postgresql.org and let me know if they
> notice any differences in speed?
Well, it's impressive.
One thing I don't like about archives.postgresql.org is that when it
show results for a search, in the space supposedly dedicated to showing
some lines of every result it always shows the header added in the
archive version of mail, i.e.
1.Re: [HACKERS] Re: psql and comments [2]
Search for: Results per page: 10 20 50 Search for: Whole word Beginning Ending Substring Output format: Long Short
URLSearch through: Entire site PgSQL - Admin PgSQL - Announce PgSQL - Bugs PgSQL - Committers PgSQL - Cygwin PgSQL -
Docs...
* http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/1999-10/msg00153.php (text/html) Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:23:56 EDT,
10351bytes
This "Search for: (etc)" serves no purpose... what about making it skip
the first constant lines of HTML so it can show useful stuff?
Also, why isn't pgsql-patches in the list?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.