Thomas Graichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hm, did you set commit_delay to zero? What are the other postmaster
>> parameters (especially -B) ?
> i used 32 clients -N set to 128 and -B to 256 - commit_delay was
> set to 5 (default) - do you expect much be
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Graichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> i hope this list is somewhat the right one for this ...
>> i did some small tests with postgresql-71.beta4 on various
>> filesystems (ext2, reiserfs, xfs) on two machines: 1 single
>> cpu and one 2 cpu smp and was
Thomas Graichen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i hope this list is somewhat the right one for this ...
> i did some small tests with postgresql-71.beta4 on various
> filesystems (ext2, reiserfs, xfs) on two machines: 1 single
> cpu and one 2 cpu smp and was a bit surprised to see the tps
> results
just to avoid confusion - some more things:
* smp and up case compared here were done on the same machine
(linux 2.4.1-XFS, smp kernel booted with or without "nosmp")
* the used hardware is a 2 pII333 128mb ide disk
* the numbers were generated using pgbench from postgres-7.1beta4
with -c 3
i hope this list is somewhat the right one for this ...
i did some small tests with postgresql-71.beta4 on various
filesystems (ext2, reiserfs, xfs) on two machines: 1 single
cpu and one 2 cpu smp and was a bit surprised to see the tps
results of the smp case to be lower than the one of the up ca
