>From a measurement I took back when we did the upgrade: performance with 2.6: (pgbench, size 100, 32 clients) 48 651 transactions per second (read only) 6 504 transactions per second (read-write) performance with 3.18 (pgbench, size 100, 32 clients) 129 303 transactions per second (read only) 16 895 transactions (read-write) So that looks like 2.6x improvement to reads and writes. That was an 8 core xeon server with H710P and 4x crucial M550 SSDs in RAID, pg9.3. Graeme Bell On 09 Apr 2015, at 12:39, Przemysław Deć <przemyslaw.dec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can you say how much faster it was? > > Przemek Deć > > 2015-04-09 11:04 GMT+02:00 Graeme B. Bell <grb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > Josh, there seems to be an inconsistency in your blog. You say 3.10.X is > > safe, but the graph you show with the poor performance seems to be from > > 3.13.X which as I understand it is a later kernel. Can you clarify which > > 3.X kernels are good to use and which are not? > > Sorry to cut in - > > So far we've found kernel 3.18 to be excellent for postgres 9.3 performance (pgbench + our own queries run much faster than with the 2.6.32-504 centos 6 kernel, and we haven't encountered random stalls or slowness). > > We use elrepo to get prebuilt rpms of the latest mainline stable kernel (kernel-ml). > > http://elrepo.org/tiki/kernel-ml > > Graeme Bell > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
