Re: bad performance on Solaris 10

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
Дата
Msg-id 200604121956.k3CJuH717290@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Ответы Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  ("Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>)
Список pgsql-performance
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> On 4/5/06 2:48 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > This essentially means stopping all bgwriter activity, thereby deferring
> > all I/O until checkpoint.  Was this considered?  With
> > checkpoint_segments to 128, it wouldn't surprise me that there wasn't
> > any checkpoint executed at all during the whole test ...
>
> Yes, many things about the Solaris UFS filesystem caused a great deal of
> pain over the 10 months of experiments we ran with Sun MDE.  Ultimately, the
> conclusion was that ZFS is going to make all of the pain go away.
>
> In the meantime, all you can do is tweak up UFS and avoid I/O as much as
> possible.

It is hard to imagine why people spend so much time modifying Sun
machines run with acceptable performance when non-Sun operating systems
work fine without such hurtles.

--
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Craig A. James"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: FOREIGN KEYS vs PERFORMANCE
Следующее
От: "Jim C. Nasby"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Better index stategy for many fields with few values