Dave,
> Yeah, I did some more testing myself, and actually get better numbers
> with increasing spins per delay to 1000, but my suspicion is that it is
> highly dependent on finding the right delay for the processor you are
> on.
Advertising
Well, it certainly didn't help here:
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
2 0 0 14870744 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 187341 48 27
26 0
2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1030 126490 65 18
16 0
2 0 0 14867032 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1021 106046 72 16
12 0
2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1025 90256 76 14 10
0
2 0 0 14870424 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1022 135249 63 22
16 0
2 0 0 14872664 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1023 131111 63 20
17 0
1 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1024 155728 57 22
20 0
2 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1028 189655 49 29
22 0
2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1018 190744 48 29
23 0
2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 186812 51 26
23 0
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
