Gavin Hamill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My guess is that this is an OS issue. Maybe there are AIX tweaks that
>> will get it up to the same or higher level of performance as your four
>> way xeon. Maybe there aren't.
> The pSeries isn't much older than our Xeon machine, and I expected the
> performance level to be exemplary out of the box..
I'm fairly surprised too. One thing I note from your comparison of
settings is that the default WAL sync method is different on the two
operating systems. If the query load is update-heavy then it would be
very worth your while to experiment with the sync method. However,
if the bottleneck is pure-SELECT transactions then WAL sync should not
be a factor at all.
Does AIX have anything comparable to oprofile or dtrace? It'd be
interesting to try to monitor things at that level and see what we can
learn. Failing a low-level profiler, there should at least be something
comparable to strace --- you should try watching some of the backends
with strace and see what their behavior is when the performance goes
south. Lots of delaying select()s or semop()s would be a red flag.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
