On 10/12/2014 17:52, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us
mailto:br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 03:40:43PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Did not see consistent measurable gains 256
effective_io_concurrency.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 03:40:43PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Did not see consistent measurable gains 256
effective_io_concurrency. Interesting that at setting of '2' (the
lowest possible setting with the feature
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 03:40:43PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
Did not see consistent measurable gains 256
effective_io_concurrency. Interesting that at setting of '2' (the
lowest possible setting with the feature actually working) is
pessimal.
Very interesting. When we added a
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:09:16PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
effective_io_concurrency 1: 46.3 sec, ~ 170 mb/sec peak via iostat
effective_io_concurrency 2: 49.3 sec, ~ 158 mb/sec peak via iostat
effective_io_concurrency
I recently sourced a 300gb intel s3500 ssd to do some performance
testing. I didn't see a lot of results on the web so I thought I'd
post some numbers. Testing machine is my workstation crapbox with 4
cores and 8GB ram (of which about 4 is usable by the ~ 50gb database).
The drive cost 260$ at
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
I recently sourced a 300gb intel s3500 ssd to do some performance
testing. I didn't see a lot of results on the web so I thought I'd
post some numbers. Testing machine is my workstation crapbox with 4
cores and 8GB
