For people finding HM2 too slow

    • maheepsangari
      maheepsangari
      Gold
      Joined: 08.06.2010 Posts: 2,163
      As my database grew larger the software significantly slowed down. Then I made some tweeks found on one of the HM2 forums and noticed a significant change in the speed of the software. Thought might help some of you guys out there.

      Do not use the Tuning Wizard. Restore Postgres SQL Tuning from the Maintenance tab of Database Manager. On some systems it will make unecessary changes to the postgresql.conf, resulting in being unable to connect to the database!

      If this problem occurs, go to the 8.4/data folder, delete postgresql.conf. Rename the backup postgresql.conf.2009(data xxxxxxxx) to "postgresql.conf". Now reboot.

      Edit PosgreSQL.conf file in the SQL C:/Program Files/PosgreSQL/8.x/data folder.

      Recommended changes:

      shared_buffers = MB (set this to 20% of your system RAM, but no more than 1000MB. Round it off to 128 MB, 256 MB, 512 MB or 768 MB. I have a 4 GB RAM so I set mine to 768 MB.

      effective_cache_size = MB (set this to 2x the size of the shared_buffers). So mine goes to 1536MB.

      Here's the link on the HM2 site for the same. Scroll down to PostgreSQL.

      And ofcourse keep performing the Database Optimization too on a regular basis.
  • 9 replies
    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 8,913
      Thanks for that maheepsangari.

      I'll have a look at my settings next chance I get.

      I'm curious, though...

      What aspects of HM2 were slow?

      "As my database grew..."
      How big was it before you notice a performance change?

      Regards,
      --VS
    • kiromanAAKK
      kiromanAAKK
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.10.2009 Posts: 4,022
      Thanks mate! :)
    • maheepsangari
      maheepsangari
      Gold
      Joined: 08.06.2010 Posts: 2,163
      Originally posted by VorpalF2F
      Thanks for that maheepsangari.

      I'll have a look at my settings next chance I get.

      I'm curious, though...

      What aspects of HM2 were slow?

      "As my database grew..."
      How big was it before you notice a performance change?

      Regards,
      --VS
      Switching between reports was slow, switching between reports to active session and vice versa was also slow, viewing hands in the replayer would be slow and would take a lot of time, stuff like that.

      Didn't notice when it started slowing down, however when I tried it my database was over a GB.
    • aXSesPS
      aXSesPS
      Bronze
      Joined: 13.12.2010 Posts: 61
      Hello there

      I have various database, my main DB is 19GB.
      Everything is super fast, it is all about setting up your hardware in a technically clever way for postgresql and HM2 be efficient.

      What I done on my computer.

      OS installed on a SSD disk
      HM2 installed in default location
      Databases stored on a RAID 0 disk
      Archiving and backups to a RAID5 disk.

      have enough fast memory and run your notes and maintenance overnight.
      I do maintenance once a day (overnight) depending on how many hands are imported.

      let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.
    • maritsula
      maritsula
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.12.2011 Posts: 905
      very very valuable info! I have problems with my HM2 running too slow. I will try the reccomnadtions you provided and I will let you know if I noticed an improvement
    • maheepsangari
      maheepsangari
      Gold
      Joined: 08.06.2010 Posts: 2,163
      Originally posted by aXSesPSRNMD
      Hello there

      I have various database, my main DB is 19GB.
      Everything is super fast, it is all about setting up your hardware in a technically clever way for postgresql and HM2 be efficient.

      What I done on my computer.

      OS installed on a SSD disk
      HM2 installed in default location
      Databases stored on a RAID 0 disk
      Archiving and backups to a RAID5 disk.

      have enough fast memory and run your notes and maintenance overnight.
      I do maintenance once a day (overnight) depending on how many hands are imported.

      let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.
      Yeah makes sense to have your OS and HM2 on a SSD and database on RAID 0 so that data writing/reading is much faster. However I've always been confused about the setup with RAID. Do you need 3 disks for RAID5 and 2 seperate ones for RAID 0 or do the 2 disks that RAID 0 needs come from the other 3 disks, I mean how does it work?
    • sandymanufan
      sandymanufan
      Global
      Joined: 14.01.2010 Posts: 310
      yeah makes sense to have your OS and HM2 on a SSD and database on RAID 0 so that data writing/reading is much faster. However I've always been confused about the setup with RAID. Do you need 3 disks for RAID5 and 2 seperate ones for RAID 0 or do the 2 disks that RAID 0 needs come from the other 3 disks, I mean how does it work? __________________


    • VorpalF2F
      VorpalF2F
      Super Moderator
      Super Moderator
      Joined: 02.09.2010 Posts: 8,913
      Originally posted by maheepsangari

      Yeah makes sense to have your OS and HM2 on a SSD and database on RAID 0 so that data writing/reading is much faster. However I've always been confused about the setup with RAID. Do you need 3 disks for RAID5 and 2 seperate ones for RAID 0 or do the 2 disks that RAID 0 needs come from the other 3 disks, I mean how does it work?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

      Calorie-reduced version:
      RAID 0: No redundancy, data is spread across 1 or more disks.
      AKA striping

      RAID 1: 2:1 Two equal sized disks duplicate each other exactly. One disk failure possible with tull recovery. Usable disk size == 1/2 of total disk size.
      AKA: Mirroring

      RAID 5: N:( N-1) Data is striped across any number of disks. A checksum is calculated and stored with the data, in such a way that if one disk fails, the data can be re-constructed from the remaining data and the checksum. Usable size for N disks is N-1. Disadvantage from RAID1 is that in the event of a disk failure I/O is severely impeded until the disk is replaced and all the checksums are rebuilt.

      There are more, but these are the only ones I've ever used in real life.
      If you have lots of money, the best is having two RAID 5 arrays mirrored.

      For home use, you need a disk interface that supports RAID, and most SATA interfaces I've encountered in the last 10 years do.
    • maheepsangari
      maheepsangari
      Gold
      Joined: 08.06.2010 Posts: 2,163
      Lol Sandy.

      Thanks VorpalF2F

      I understand the various RAID levels and how they work I was just confused about the setup of multiple RAID levels that aXSesPSRNMD seems to be using.

      Like RAID 0 requires a min of 2 disks to form the array and RAID 5 requires a minimum of 3 disks so would having both mean having 5 min disks in total.

      I also came across some nested RAID combos like RAID 50 and RAID 05 where RAID 50 will strip 2 or more sets of RAID 5 improving RAID 5's performance requiring min 6 disks in total and RAID 05 which would have min 3 sets of RAID 0 arrays that are combined to form a RAID 5 set which would also require 6 disks min.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nested_RAID_levels#RAID_05_.28RAID_0.2B5.29

      Now I believe that he is storing his database on RAID 0 for obvious speed reasons which will make HM2 work faster and he's saving backups on RAID 5 so that they are safe.

      I'm wondering if one of the combos like RAID 50 will work better hence improving the performance further of RAID 5.

      Regarding your point of having 2 RAID 5 arrays mirrored i.e. RAID 51, seems good as that will offer performance and backup but I still feel that something like RAID 50 would perhaps make it a lot faster, or am I perhaps overestimating its performance.