From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 17 21:11:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDFA16A41A for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@webtent.net) Received: from esmtp.webtent.net (esmtp.webtent.net [208.38.145.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8802113C457 for ; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:11:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@webtent.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by esmtp.webtent.net (WebTent ESMTP Postfix Internet Mail Gateway) with ESMTP id B4BC77FDBC; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:11:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from esmtp.webtent.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx1.webtent.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48333-06; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [70.110.70.43] (columbus.webtent.org [70.110.70.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by esmtp.webtent.net (WebTent ESMTP Postfix Internet Mail Gateway) with ESMTP id A8A327FBB1; Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:09:29 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Fitzpatrick To: Bill Moran In-Reply-To: <20080117155336.0c38d86d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <1200602606.7281.48.camel@columbus.webtent.org> <20080117155336.0c38d86d.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: WebTent Networking, Inc. Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:09:28 -0500 Message-Id: <1200604168.7281.65.camel@columbus.webtent.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: WebTent Mailguard 1.0.2a Cc: FreeBSD Subject: Re: db performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: robert@webtent.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:11:44 -0000 On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 15:53 -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > In response to Robert Fitzpatrick : > > > I also have assumed in the past that db performance could be better if I > > get off the system RAID-5 and put it on 1+0? The system has 4 SATA > > drives. > > That will speed things up if IO is your bottleneck, but you've not > demonstrated that. > > Which machine in this system is the bottleneck? Are the Amavis machines > timing out, or is the PostgreSQL server too slow? If I understand your > description, it sounds like a network problem to me ... i.e., machines > not on the same gateway as the PG server are experience slow network > response (or dropped packets?) that's causing amavis to time out while > trying to talk to PG. I would suggest investigating there first. > The SA timeouts I'm finding on all the servers. Even the db server that runs it's own amavisd process for backup purposes and some minor domains just to make sure it is there and working. This is why I think you're right, the pgsql db is too slow. Would I possibly see dramatic differences in speed with the RAID switch? -- Robert