yes - originally I was going to stop at 8 clients, but once the bit was
between the teethIf I get another box to myself I will try -s 50 or
100 and see what that shows up.
cheers
Mark
Neil Conway wrote:
FYI, the pgbench docs state:
NOTE: scaling factor should be at least as large as
Good point -
It is Pg 7.4beta1 , compiled with
CFLAGS += -O2 -funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations
Jeff wrote:
What version of PG?
If it is before 7.4 PG compiles with _NO_ optimization by default and
was a huge part of the slowness of PG on solaris.
---(end o
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note : The Pgbench runs were conducted using -s 10 and -t 1000 -c
> 1->64, 2 - 3 runs of each setup were performed (averaged figures
> shown).
FYI, the pgbench docs state:
NOTE: scaling factor should be at least as large as the largest
numbe
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:56:38 +1300
Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The major performance killer appeared to be mounting the filesystem
> with the logging option. The next most significant seemed to be the
> choice of sync_method for Pg - the default (open_datasync), which we
> initially
This is a well-worn thread title - apologies, but these results seemed
interesting, and hopefully useful in the quest to get better performance
on Solaris:
I was curious to see if the rather uninspiring pgbench performance
obtained from a Sun 280R (see General: ATA Disks and RAID controllers
f
