On 12/05/2013 05:48 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Peter Geoghegan (p...@heroku.com) wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>> But you know what? 2.6, overall, still performs better than any kernel >>> in the 3.X series, at least for Postgres. >> >> What about the fseek() scalability issue? > > Not to mention that the 2.6 which I suspect you're referring to (RHEL) > isn't exactly "2.6"..
Actually, I've been able to do 35K TPS on commodity hardware on Ubuntu 10.04. I have yet to go about 15K on any Ubuntu running a 3.X Kernel. The CPU scheduling on 2.6 just seems to be far better tuned, aside from the IO issues; at 35K TPS, the CPU workload is evenly distributed across cores, whereas on 3.X it lurches from core to core like a drunk in a cathedral. However, the hardware is not identical, and this is on proprietary, not benchmark, workloads, which is why I haven't published anything. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
