Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
| От | Krunal Bauskar |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB10pyb_-mhUwWG0XFZUVVuGjUWikQ5p=CSut=CBQVfQgCXMaA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM.
Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 10:50, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:00:50AM +0530, Krunal Bauskar wrote:
>> (Thanks to Amit Khandekar for rigorously performance testing this patch
>> with different combinations).
> For the simple-update and tpcb-like graphs, do you have any actual
> numbers to share between 128 and 1024 connections?
Also, exactly what hardware/software platform were these curves
obtained on?
Hardware: ARM Kunpeng 920 BareMetal Server 2.6 GHz. 64 cores (56 cores for server and 8 for client) [2 numa nodes]
Storage: 3.2 TB NVMe SSD
OS: CentOS Linux release 7.6
PGSQL: baseline = Release Tag 13.1
Invocation suite: https://github.com/mysqlonarm/benchmark-suites/tree/master/pgsql-pbench (Uses pgbench)
regards, tom lane
Regards,
Krunal Bauskar
Krunal Bauskar
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: