On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:40:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> It'd be real interesting to see comparable numbers from some non-Linux > > >> kernels, particularly commercial systems like Solaris. > > > > > Did you see the Solaris results I posted? > > > > Are you speaking of > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00715.php > > ? > > > > That doesn't seem directly relevant to the point, because it's for a > > 2-CPU machine; so there's no way to run a test case that uses more than > > one but less than all the processors. In either the "one" or "all" > > cases, performance ought to be pretty stable regardless of whether the > > kernel understands about any processor asymmetries that may exist in > > the hardware. Not to mention that I don't know of any asymmetries in > > a dual SPARC anyway. We really need to test this on comparable > > hardware, which I guess means we need Solaris/x86 on something with > > hyperthreading or known NUMA asymmetry. > > I have access to a 4-way Opteron 852 running Solaris 10. What patches > would you like me to test?
These ones here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-09/msg00566.php Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster