On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Scott Carey <sc...@richrelevance.com> wrote: >> Well, that is sort of true for all benchmarks, but I do find that bonnie++ >> is the worst of the bunch. I consider it relatively useless compared to >> fio. Its just not a great benchmark for server type load and I find it >> lacking in the ability to simulate real applications. > > I agree. My biggest gripe with bonnie actually is that 99% of the > time is spent measuring in sequential tests which is not that > important in the database world. Dedicated wal volume uses ostensibly > sequential io, but it's fairly difficult to outrun a dedicated wal > volume even if it's on a vanilla sata drive. > > pgbench is actually a pretty awesome i/o tester assuming you have big > enough scaling factor, because: > a) it's much closer to the environment you will actually run in > b) you get to see what i/o affecting options have on the load > c) you have broad array of options regarding what gets done (select > only, -f, etc) > d) once you build the test database, you can do multiple runs without > rebuilding it
Seeing as how pgbench only goes to scaling factor of 4000, are the any plans on enlarging that number? -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
