Hi Michael,
Michael Fuhr wrote:
Have you tweaked postgresql.conf at all? If so, what non-default
settings are you using?
Yes, I have tweaked the following settings:
shared_buffers = 4
work_mem = 512000
maintenance_work_mem = 512000
max_fsm_pages = 4
effective_cache_size =
Hi Michael,
Michael Fuhr wrote:
If you run pgbench several times without intervening checkpoints,
do your postmaster logs have any messages like checkpoints are
occurring too frequently? It might be useful to increase
checkpoint_warning up to the value of checkpoint_timeout and then
see if
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:29:49PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
I was expecting a low(ish) score the first run (because the tables are not
loaded in the cache yet), followed by continues high(ish) scores, but not an
alternating pattern. I also did not expect so much difference, given the
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Speaking of 'disks', what's your exact layout? Do you have a 5 drive
raid5 for the OS and the database, 1 drive for swap and 1 drive for
pg_xlog?
On a Sil SATA 3114 controller:
/dev/sda OS + Swap
/dev/sdb /var with pg_xlog
On the 3Ware 9500S-8, 5 disk array:
/dev/sdc
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 08:49:30PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Speaking of 'disks', what's your exact layout? Do you have a 5 drive
raid5 for the OS and the database, 1 drive for swap and 1 drive for
pg_xlog?
On a Sil SATA 3114 controller:
/dev/sda OS + Swap
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Well, the problem is that you're using RAID5, which has a huge write
overhead. You're unlikely to get good performance with it.
Apparently. But I had no idea that the performance hit would be that big.
Running bonnie or copying a large file with dd show that the card can do
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 09:15:37PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Well, the problem is that you're using RAID5, which has a huge write
overhead. You're unlikely to get good performance with it.
Apparently. But I had no idea that the performance hit would be that big.
Hi,
Below are some results of running pgbench, run on a machine that is doing
nothing else than running PostgreSQL woth pgbench. The strange thing is that
the results are *constantly alternating* hight (750-850 transactions)and low
(50-80 transactions), no matter how many test I run. If I wait
Hi Michael,
Thanls for your response.
Michael Fuhr wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 04:29:49PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Below are some results of running pgbench, run on a machine that
is doing nothing else than running PostgreSQL woth pgbench. The
strange thing is that the results are
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 07:46:05PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Michael Fuhr wrote:
What's your setting?
Default.
Have you tweaked postgresql.conf at all? If so, what non-default
settings are you using?
Are your test results more consistent
if you execute CHECKPOINT between them?
[Please copy the mailing list on replies.]
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 09:38:20PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
Michael Fuhr wrote:
Have you tweaked postgresql.conf at all? If so, what non-default
settings are you using?
Yes, I have tweaked the following settings:
shared_buffers =
11 matches
Mail list logo
