Hi, Mikael, Mikael Carneholm wrote: > This is something I'd also would like to test, as a common best-practice > these days is to go for a SAME (stripe all, mirror everything) setup. > From a development perspective it's easier to use SAME as the developers > won't have to think about physical location for new tables/indices, so > if there's no performance penalty with SAME I'll gladly keep it that > way. Usually, it's not the developers task to care about that, but the DBAs responsibility. >> And look into the commit_delay/commit_siblings settings, they allow you > to deal latency for throughput (means a little more latency per > transaction, but much more transactions per second throughput for the > whole system.) > > In a previous test, using cd=5000 and cs=20 increased transaction > throughput by ~20% so I'll definitely fiddle with that in the coming > tests as well. How many parallel transactions do you have? Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
