Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> We are really not going to go in this direction. If you want ideal 
> performance tests then a heterogenous distributed collection  of 
> autonomous systems like buildfarm is not what you want.
> 
> You are going to have to live with the fatc that there will be 
> occasional, possibly even frequent, blips in the data due to other 
> activity on the machine.
> 
> If you want tightly controlled or very heavy load testing this is the 
> wrong vehicle.
> 
> You might think that what that leaves us is not worth having - the 
> consensus in Toronto seemed to be that it is worth having, 
> which is why 
> it is being pursued.
> 

I wasn't at the conference, but the impression I'm under is that the
point of this isn't to catch a change that causes a 1% slowdown; the
point is to catch much larger problems, probably 20% slowdown or more.

Given the concerns about running this on machines that don't have a lot
of CPU and disk to spare, should it ship disabled?

Andrew, what do you think of pgbench reports shipping separately? I have
no idea how the server end is set up, so I don't know how much of a pain
that would be. 

Regards,
Paul Bort

P.S. My current thought for settings is scaling factor 10, users 5,
transactions 1000.

 

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to