Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-07-21 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:56:56AM -0700, Robert Lor wrote: I ran pgbench and fired up a DTrace script using the lwlock probes we've added, and it looks like BufMappingLock is the most contended lock, but CheckpointStartLocks are held for longer duration! Not terribly surprising given that

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-07-21 Thread Sven Geisler
Hi, Tom Lane schrieb: Robert Lor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I ran pgbench and fired up a DTrace script using the lwlock probes we've added, and it looks like BufMappingLock is the most contended lock, but CheckpointStartLocks are held for longer duration! Those numbers look a bit

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jim Nasby wrote: On Jun 16, 2006, at 12:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: First thing as soon as I have a login, of course, is to set up a Buildfarm instance. Keep in mind that buildfarm clients and benchmarking stuff don't usually mix well. On a fast machine like this a buildfarm run is

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread David Roussel
Arjen van der Meijden wrote: Here is a graph of our performance measured on PostgreSQL: http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/T2000-schaling-postgresql.png ... The "perfect" line is based on the "Max" value for 1 core and then just multiplied by the amount of cores to have

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
On 22-6-2006 15:03, David Roussel wrote: Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In such a case the graph will go through the

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-22 Thread Craig A. James
Arjen van der Meijden wrote: First of all, this graph has no origin. Its a bit difficult to test with less than one cpu. Sure it does. I ran all the tests. They all took infinite time, and I got zero results. And my results are 100% accurate and reliable. It's perfectly valid data. :-)

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-18 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
On 17-6-2006 1:24, Josh Berkus wrote: Arjen, I can already confirm very good scalability (with our workload) on postgresql on that machine. We've been testing a 32thread/16G-version and it shows near-linear scaling when enabling 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores (with all four threads enabled). Keen.

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL

2006-06-17 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, 18% in s_lock is definitely bad :-(.  Were you able to determine which LWLock(s) are accounting for the contention? Gavin Sherry and Tom Daly (Sun) are currently working on identifying the problem lock using DLWLOCK_STATS. Any luck, Gavin? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL community

2006-06-16 Thread Josh Berkus
Arjen, I can already confirm very good scalability (with our workload) on postgresql on that machine. We've been testing a 32thread/16G-version and it shows near-linear scaling when enabling 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 cores (with all four threads enabled). Keen. We're trying to keep the linear