emory on a recent PC with 128GB of RAM.
- DragonFly: scales better than everything else out there even with mmap()
Given these results I doubt reintroducing SysV shm memory use on PostgreSQL
is worthwile; most platforms where it has a performance impact have much
bigger issues to fix first.
--
Fran
counter data during the last benchmark run and sent it to adrian@.
It was also discussed on freebsd-performance; the thread begins here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance/2014-March/004770.html
--
Francois Tigeot
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
.6 and FreeBSD 10. You may be interested in the results:
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/2014-March/128216.html
--
Francois Tigeot
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
developers about the system getting unresponsive under
load.
--
Francois Tigeot
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:55:19PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Francois Tigeot wrote:
> >
> > Some links with more details about improvements and final results:
> > http://www.shiningsilence.com/dbsdlog/2012/09/19/10403.html
> > ht
ts), but I believe some of the
more mainstream BSDs are.
The original SYSV limits looked like something straight from the 1980s;
we're now autotuning them on DragonFly.
FreeBSD and NetBSD still needed manual tuning last time I had a look.
--
Francois Tigeot
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mail
