On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 04:25:28PM -0600, Shaun Thomas wrote: > On 12/05/2012 04:19 PM, Daniel Farina wrote: > > >Is 3.2 a significant regression from previous releases, or is 3.4 just > >faster? Your wording only indicates that "older kernel is slow," but > >your tone would suggest that you feel this is a regression, cf. > > It's definitely a regression. I'm trying to pin it down, but the > 3.2.0-24 kernel didn't do the CPU drain down to single-digits on > that client load test. I'm working on 3.2.0-30 and going down to > figure out which patch might have done it. > > Older kernels performed better. And by older, I mean 2.6. Still not > 3.4 levels, but that's expected. I haven't checked 3.0, but other > threads I've read suggest it had less problems. Sorry if I wasn't > clear. Ah, that is interesting about 2.6. I had wondered how Debian stable would have performed, 2.6.32-5. This relates to a recent discussion about the appropriateness of Ubuntu for database servers: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-11/msg00358.php Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
