On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:40 -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> I think his point was that 9 * 4 != 2400

Oh.. heh.. I didn't even notice that.

Can I pretend I did it in my head using HEX math and that it wasn't a
mistake?

> On Apr 6, 2005 2:23 PM, Rod Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:42 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
> > > > My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
> > > > single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
> > > > Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
> > > > about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
> > > > machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
> > >
> > > Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400?
> > 
> > Nope. You've not missed anything.
> > 
> > If I ran 10 processes and the requirement would be met.
> > --
> > 
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
> 
-- 


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: 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