- Цитат от David Fetter (da...@fetter.org), на 23.07.2012 в
15:41 - I'm not sure how you automate testing a pull-the-plug
scenario.
I have a dim memory of how the FreeBSD project was alleged to have
done it, namely by rigging a serial port (yes, it was that long ago)
to the pow
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:41 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:29:16AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how you automate testing a pull-the-plug scenario.
>
> I have a dim memory of how the FreeBSD project was alleged to have
> done it, namely by rigging a seri
On 07/23/2012 09:47 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 07/23/2012 09:04 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/23/2012 08:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm not sure how you automate testing a pull-the-plug scenario.
fire up kvm or qemu instances, then kill 'em.
Yeah, maybe. Knowing just when to kill th
On 07/23/2012 09:04 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
On 07/23/2012 08:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm not sure how you automate testing a pull-the-plug scenario.
fire up kvm or qemu instances, then kill 'em.
Yeah, maybe. Knowing just when to kill them might be an interesting
question.
I'm als
On 07/23/2012 08:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I'm not sure how you automate testing a pull-the-plug scenario.
fire up kvm or qemu instances, then kill 'em.
--
Craig Ringer
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.p
On 07/23/2012 08:41 AM, David Fetter wrote:
The buildfarm is not at all designed to test performance. That's why
we want a performance farm.
Right. Apart from hardware, what are we stalled on?
Software :-)
I am trying to find some cycles to get something going.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent v
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:29:16AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 07/23/2012 12:37 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:56:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>Robert Haas writes:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn'
On 07/23/2012 12:37 AM, David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:56:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely
broken the statistics about backend-initiated writes?
Ye
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 06:56:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely
> >> broken the statistics about backend-initiated writes?
>
> > Yes, it seems to have done jus
On 17 July 2012 23:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely broken
>>> the statistics about backend-initiated writes?
>
>> Yes, it seems to have done just that.
>
> So I went t
On 18.07.2012 02:48, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 17 July 2012 23:56, Tom Lane wrote:
This implies that nobody has done pull-the-plug testing on either HEAD
or 9.2 since the checkpointer split went in (2011-11-01), because even
a modicum of such testing would surely have shown that we're failing t
Greg Smith writes:
> On 07/17/2012 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Furthermore, I would say that any performance testing done since then,
>> if it wasn't looking at purely read-only scenarios, isn't worth the
>> electrons it's written on. In particular, any performance gain that
>> anybody might hav
On 07/18/2012 12:00 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
The second justification for the split was that it seems easier to get
a low power result from, which I believe was the angle Peter Geoghegan
was working when this popped up originally. The checkpointer has to
run sometimes, but only at a 50% duty cyc
On 07/17/2012 06:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
So I went to fix this in the obvious way (attached), but while testing
it I found that the number of buffers_backend events reported during
a regression test run barely changed; which surprised the heck out of
me, so I dug deeper. The cause turns out to be
On 17 July 2012 23:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> This implies that nobody has done pull-the-plug testing on either HEAD
> or 9.2 since the checkpointer split went in (2011-11-01), because even
> a modicum of such testing would surely have shown that we're failing to
> fsync a significant fraction of our w
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely broken
>> the statistics about backend-initiated writes?
> Yes, it seems to have done just that.
So I went to fix this in the obvious way (attached), but whil
16 matches
Mail list logo
