On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
>
>> On the single 2.2GHz Athlon, the maximum tps seems to be 1450...what's the
>> bottleneck? Is PG lock-bound?
>
> It can become lock-bound if you don't make the database scale signif
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Jeffrey Baker wrote:
On the single 2.2GHz Athlon, the maximum tps seems to be 1450...what's
the bottleneck? Is PG lock-bound?
It can become lock-bound if you don't make the database scale
significantly larger than the number of clients, but that's probably not
your probl
I'm spending a third day testing with the ioDrive, and it occurred to
me that I should normalize my tests by mounting the database on a
ramdisk. The results were surprisingly low. On the single 2.2GHz
Athlon, the maximum tps seems to be 1450. This is achieved with a
single connection. I/O rates
PFC, I have to say these kind of posts make me a fan of yours. I've
read many of your storage-related replied and have found them all very
educational. I just want to let you know I found your assessment of the
impact of Flash storage perfectly-worded and unbelievably insightful.
Thanks
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Service Time Percentile, millis
>>>R/W TPS R-O TPS 50th 80th 90th 95th
>>> RAID 182 673
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a lot of problems with your statements. First of all, we are
> not really talking about 'RAM' storage...I think your comments would
> be more on point if we were talking about mounting database storage
> directly fr
*) is the flash random write problem going to be solved in hardware or
specialized solid state write caching techniques. At least
currently, it seems like software is filling the role.
Those flash chips are page-based, not unlike a harddisk, ie. you cannot
erase and write a byte, you mus
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Jonah H. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Basically the ioDrive is smoking the RAID. The only real problem with
>> this benchmark is that the machine became CPU-limited rather quickly.
>
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:41 AM, Jeffrey Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Service Time Percentile, millis
>>R/W TPS R-O TPS 50th 80th 90th 95th
>> RAID 182 673 18 32 42 64
>> Fusion971 4792 8 9
In response to "Scott Marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Jessica Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How can I tell if my work_mem configuration is enough to support all
> > Postgres user activities on the server I am managing?
> >
> > Where do I find the indication
10 matches
Mail list logo
