On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Jeff <threshar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Now, moving into reality I compiled 8.3.latest and gave it a whirl. Running > against a software R1 of the 2 x25-e's I got the following pgbench results: > (note config tweaks: work_mem=>4mb, shared_buffers=>1gb, should probably > have tweaked checkpoint_segs, as it was emitting lots of notices about that, > but I didn't). You may find you get better numbers with a lower shared_buffers value, and definitely try cranking up number of checkpoint segments to something in the 50 to 100 range. > (multiple runs, avg tps) > > Scalefactor 50, 10 clients: 1700tps > > At that point I realized write caching on the drives was ON. So I turned it > off at this point: > > Scalefactor 50, 10 clients: 900tps > > At scalefactor 50 the dataset fits well within memory, so I scaled it up. > > Scalefactor 1500: 10 clients: 420tps > > > While some of us have arrays that can smash those numbers, that is crazy > impressive for a plain old mirror pair. I also did not do much tweaking of > PG itself. On a scale factor or 100 my 12 disk 15k.5 seagate sas drives on an areca get somewhere in the 2800 to 3200 tps range on sustained tests for anywhere from 8 to 32 or so concurrent clients. I get similar performance falloffs as I increase the testdb scaling factor. But for a pair of disks in a mirror with no caching controller, that's impressive. I've already told my boss our next servers will likely have intel's SSDs in them. > While I'm in the testing mood, are there some other tests folks would like > me to try out? how about varying the number of clients with a static scalefactor? -- When fascism comes to America, it will be the intolerant selling fascism as diversity. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
