Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-07-21 Thread Sven Geisler
Hi, Tom Lane schrieb: > Robert Lor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I ran pgbench and fired up a DTrace script using the lwlock probes we've >> added, and it looks like BufMappingLock is the most contended lock, but >> CheckpointStartLocks are held for longer duration! > > Those numbers look a b

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-07-21 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:56:56AM -0700, Robert Lor wrote: > I ran pgbench and fired up a DTrace script using the lwlock probes we've > added, and it looks like BufMappingLock is the most contended lock, but > CheckpointStartLocks are held for longer duration! Not terribly surprising given th

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread Craig A. James
Arjen van der Meijden wrote: First of all, this graph has no origin. Its a bit difficult to test with less than one cpu. Sure it does. I ran all the tests. They all took infinite time, and I got zero results. And my results are 100% accurate and reliable. It's perfectly valid data. :-) C

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
On 22-6-2006 15:03, David Roussel wrote: Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In such a case the graph will go through the or

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread David Roussel
Arjen van der Meijden wrote: Here is a graph of our performance measured on PostgreSQL: http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/T2000-schaling-postgresql.png ... The "perfect" line is based on the "Max" value for 1 core and then just multiplied by the amount of cores to have

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-21 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jim Nasby wrote: On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: First thing as soon as I have a login, of course, is to set up a Buildfarm instance. Keep in mind that buildfarm clients and benchmarking stuff don't usually mix well. On a fast machine like this a buildfarm run is

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-18 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
On 17-6-2006 1:24, Josh Berkus wrote: Arjen, I can already confirm very good scalability (with our workload) on postgresql on that machine. We've been testing a 32thread/16G-version and it shows near-linear scaling when enabling 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores (with all four threads enabled). Keen.

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-17 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, > 18% in s_lock is definitely bad :-(.  Were you able to determine which > LWLock(s) are accounting for the contention? Gavin Sherry and Tom Daly (Sun) are currently working on identifying the problem lock using DLWLOCK_STATS. Any luck, Gavin? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisc

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL community

2006-06-16 Thread Josh Berkus
Arjen, > I can already confirm very good scalability (with our workload) on > postgresql on that machine. We've been testing a 32thread/16G-version > and it shows near-linear scaling when enabling 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores > (with all four threads enabled). Keen. We're trying to keep the linear sc