Luke Lonergan wrote:
+1
Mark, can you quantify the impact of not running with IRQ balancing enabled?
Whoops, look like performance was due more to enabling the
--enable-thread-safe flag.
IRQ balancing on : 7086.75
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/158/
IRQ balancing off: 7057.90
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/163/
The interrupt charts look completely different. There's too much stuff
on the chart to determine what interrupts are from what though. :( It
needs to be redone per processor (as opposed to per interrupt per
processor) to be more useful in determining if one processor is
overloaded due to interrupts.
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/158/report/sar/sar-intr.png
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/163/report/sar/sar-intr.png
But the sum of all the interrupts handled are close between tests so it
seems clear no single processor was overloaded:
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/158/report/sar/sar-intr_s.png
http://dbt.osdl.org/dbt/dbt2dev/results/dev4-015/163/report/sar/sar-intr_s.png
Mark
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
