From: Jeff Janes jeff.ja...@gmail.com
I thought that this was the point I was making, not the point I was
missing. You have the same hard drives you had before, but now due to a
software improvement you are cramming 5 times more stuff through them.
Yeah, you will get bigger latency spikes. Why
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and 1219.422
respectively. The throughput is of course greatly improved, but I
On 2014-02-18 20:49:06 +0900, MauMau wrote:
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and 1219.422
respectively. The
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and
On 02/18/2014 06:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
--- or in other words, greater variance in response times. With my simple
understanding, that sounds like a problem for response-sensitive users.
If you need the throughput provided
On 2014-02-18 19:12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
You're missing MauMau's point. In essence, he's comparing two systems with
the same number of clients, issuing queries as fast as they can, and one can
do 2000 TPS while the other one can do 1 TPS. You would expect the
On 02/18/2014 10:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-18 19:12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's because of the extra checkpoints. If you look
at the individual test graphs, there are clear spikes in latency, but the
latency is otherwise small. With a higher
On 2014-02-18 23:01:08 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 02/18/2014 10:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-02-18 19:12:32 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's because of the extra checkpoints. If you look
at the individual test graphs, there are clear spikes in
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com
wrote:
On 02/18/2014 06:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:49 AM, MauMau maumau...@gmail.com wrote:
--- or in other words, greater variance in response times. With my
simple
understanding, that
Hello Heikki san,
I'm excited about your great work, xlog scaling. I'm looking forward to the
release of 9.4.
Please let me ask you about your performance data on the page:
http://hlinnaka.iki.fi/xloginsert-scaling/padding/
I'm worried about the big increase in max latency. Do you know
Hi,
On 2014-02-18 00:43:54 +0900, MauMau wrote:
Please let me ask you about your performance data on the page:
http://hlinnaka.iki.fi/xloginsert-scaling/padding/
I'm worried about the big increase in max latency. Do you know the cause?
More frequent checkpoints caused by increased WAL
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 00:43:54 +0900, MauMau wrote:
I'm worried about the big increase in max latency. Do you know the
cause?
More frequent checkpoints caused by increased WAL volume thanks to
enhanced
performance?
I don't see much evidence of increased
On 2014-02-18 01:35:52 +0900, MauMau wrote:
From: Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
On 2014-02-18 00:43:54 +0900, MauMau wrote:
I'm worried about the big increase in max latency. Do you know the
cause?
More frequent checkpoints caused by increased WAL volume thanks to
enhanced
13 matches
Mail list logo
