Chris Hedemark on Wed, 9 Apr 2003 21:53:05 -0400 |
On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 10:01 PM, Barry Roomberg wrote: Required 3rd party software said: PUKE - HURL - DIE. 3rd Party Software Vendor said (to concerned sysadmin who likes to take care of his developers) "We have not heard of problems with PostgreSQL but if you will give us access to a PostgreSQL box, we will work with you to make sure it works 100%. We claim 100% ODBC support and stand by that." So my boss, who LOVES M$ desktop tools and HATES M$ backend stuff wants to try MySQL again. He's been told by the Open Source gnomes [snip]
I shmooze a bit and commandeer a dual 2.4 GHz Xeon box. It has about 2 weeks SAN storage would have been nicer than local disk but I'm not going to cry over it now. Kernel tuning figures were, as best as I can tell, pulled verbatim from examples given in an Oracle whitepaper and not tuned to the server in question. Add up the time saved in productions, the happier interactive customer, and
One of the production PostgreSQL servers was configured by someone to have more shared memory available than actual physical memory. Hmmm. PostgreSQL gurus pitch numbers of no more than 50%-75% of physical memory should go to shared memory. This is just the first thing I found. I pretty much stopped looking there at that point, consulted with the DBA to see if any tuning was done, confirmed that there wasn't and asked $BOSS to let me spend some time on this to at least improve production systems that currently run against PostgreSQL. If PostgreSQL is going to eat with the dogs for its poor performance, at least it should be because of true product suckage and not poor configuration. _________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|