Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
От | Scott Marlowe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres Benchmark Results |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 46523925.9080901@g2switchworks.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres Benchmark Results ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote: > >> I also went into benchmarking mode last night for my own >> amusement when I read on the linux-kernel ML that >> NCQ support for nForce5 chips was released. >> I tried current PostgreSQL 8.3devel CVS. >> pgbench over local TCP connection with >> 25 clients and 3000 transacts/client gave me >> around 445 tps before applying NCQ support. >> 680 tps after. >> >> It went over 840 tps after adding HOT v7 patch, >> still with 25 clients. It topped at 1062 tps with 3-4 clients. >> I used a single Seagate 320GB SATA2 drive >> for the test, which only has less than 40GB free. >> So it's already at the end of the disk giving smaller >> transfer rates then at the beginning. Filesystem is ext3. >> Dual core Athlon64 X2 4200 in 64-bit mode. >> I have never seen such a performance before >> on a desktop machine. >> > > I'd be willing to bet money that the drive is lying about commits/fsync. > Each transaction committed essentially requires one revolution of the > drive with pg_xlog on it, so a 15kRPM drive limits you to 250TPS. > > BTW, PostgreSQL sees a big speed boost if you mount ext3 with the option > data=writeback. Note that doing that probably has a negative impact on > data recovery after a crash for non-database files. > I thought you were limited to 250 or so COMMITS to disk per second, and since >1 client can be committed at once, you could do greater than 250 tps, as long as you had >1 client providing input. Or was I wrong?
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: