Best setup for upgraded system, splitting up data-logs-index

[kraada]

Thanks for the links, that's good to know.

Personally I'm very happy with my computer's performance using VMWare, but I've used Linux as my primary OS now for ~8.5 years, so I'm a bit biased

[MiamiVIce80]

my setup:

Intel E6750 + 8GB RAM running Windows Vista Buisness x64 with two Raid0 drives 1. raid0: 2xSeagate ST3250410AS (2x232.8gb) (OS and pg_xlog) 2. raid0: 2xWD 6400AAKS (2x596.1gb) (postgres-data)

That is not close to a server setup.The performance is really nice. But there are some disadvantages. Windows Vista doesnt use the RAM very well, e.g. the maximum RAM u could assign to a postgres thread is 1GB. And the normal PT3 setup is that there is a single connection to the database. 2 years ago i tried Windows Server 2003 and i had the same problem. If i raised shared_buffers over 1GB in postgres.conf, postgres didnt start. I´m not that used to microsoft server products. I

My solution atm is that i split observed databases into parts of 10mio hands each database. That is a size that my system handels well.

Atm i build a Linux Server which will run postgres and i will use my Windows PC for playing poker. I guess it will be a little bit slower, but more stable and will take some load form my Windows Vista.

[scbrigad]

my setup:

Intel E6750 + 8GB RAM running Windows Vista Buisness x64 with two Raid0 drives 1. raid0: 2xSeagate ST3250410AS (2x232.8gb) (OS and pg_xlog) 2. raid0: 2xWD 6400AAKS (2x596.1gb) (postgres-data)

That is not close to a server setup.The performance is really nice. But there are some disadvantages. Windows Vista doesnt use the RAM very well, e.g. the maximum RAM u could assign to a postgres thread is 1GB. And the normal PT3 setup is that there is a single connection to the database. 2 years ago i tried Windows Server 2003 and i had the same problem. If i raised shared_buffers over 1GB in postgres.conf, postgres didnt start. I´m not that used to microsoft server products. I

My solution atm is that i split observed databases into parts of 10mio hands each database. That is a size that my system handels well.

Atm i build a Linux Server which will run postgres and i will use my Windows PC for playing poker. I guess it will be a little bit slower, but more stable and will take some load form my Windows Vista.

OK Thanks.... I recently tweaked my settings to assign 1GB even in XP, but I'm not sure it's made a big difference. I'm guessing there will be better forum support for Linux server, so I was thinking maybe I could install that as a Virtual Machine on XP? Would this really speed up writing of small database flies or is this going to use the native OS for file i/o?

[kraada]

I use virtualization but in the other direction, so I can't say for sure how effective putting Linux in a VM is going to be, but this page can get you started if you want to give it a try -- good luck, personally I use Ubuntu so I can help you there the easiest if you need it. It's more of a full desktop system though so I'm not sure it's the best for these need, though anything tailored specifically to your needs is likely going to be harder to set up . . .

[scbrigad]

I use virtualization but in the other direction, so I can't say for sure how effective putting Linux in a VM is going to be, but this page can get you started if you want to give it a try -- good luck, personally I use Ubuntu so I can help you there the easiest if you need it. It's more of a full desktop system though so I'm not sure it's the best for these need, though anything tailored specifically to your needs is likely going to be harder to set up . . .

Yeah I see a lot of info on the net about running various linux distro's as a windows VM. I am currently running Virtual PC 2007 and microsoft supports linux VM additions for red hat but not for ubuntu (though others have worked around this). I think i'll install Ubuntu and try it out, though I assume I want the server version?

My real question is how do these VM setup's handle file i/o? Does it get redirected through the the native Windows O/S, and thus lead back to my problems with XP poorly handling SSD's and small file database writes? Or does it do this directly and more efficiently?

[kraada]

You'd want the server version of ubuntu, though if you got the desktop version by accident all that's really different is the default stock of programs installed I believe.

Since all you really want it for is to run PostgreSQL you could really strip it down quite a lot if you wanted (I mean, you don't even need a window manager . . .).

I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about the underlying method that VMs use to access the hardware. I know in linux they do it via the devices in the /dev/ tree, but whether that involves direct hardware access or emulation I'm not sure, and I'm doubly not sure how it works in Windows -- it might be something to ask in the VMWare forums. Please let me know your findings if you figure it out though.