On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> If you want to get a useful measurement of seeks/second, setup pgbench-tools
> with a SELECT-only test, and create a database that's 2 to 4X as big as RAM.
> The TPS result you get from that is a much more useful number for
> real-world seeks t
On 09/13/2011 03:13 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote:
Bonnie++ delivered the expected huge throughput for sequential read
and write. It seems in line with other benchmarks I found online.
However, we are only seeing 180 seeks/sec, but seems quite low.
I wouldn't worry about that if the sequential ra
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Samuel Gendler
wrote:
> I'm just beginning the process of benchmarking and tuning a new server.
> Something I really haven't done before. I'm using Greg's book as a guide.
> I started with bonnie++ (1.96) and immediately got anomalous results (I
> think).
>
> H
I'm just beginning the process of benchmarking and tuning a new server.
Something I really haven't done before. I'm using Greg's book as a guide.
I started with bonnie++ (1.96) and immediately got anomalous results (I
think).
Hardware is as follows:
2x quad core xeon 5504 2.0Ghz, 2x4MB cache
1
