X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16D89DCDB4 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:43:02 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72507-06 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:43:01 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [63.87.162.25]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CACE9DCDBE for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:42:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from 10.10.1.37 ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com ([10.10.1.2]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:42:58 +0000 Received: from state.g2switchworks.com by mail.g2switchworks.com; 24 Mar 2006 10:42:58 -0600 Subject: Re: Postmaster using only 4-5% CPU From: Scott Marlowe To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: Edoardo Serra , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20060324101654.GQ90527@pervasive.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20060321115738.060f9078@webrainstorm.it> <1142963080.17883.193.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20060322120000.0796c930@webrainstorm.it> <20060324101654.GQ90527@pervasive.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1143218577.10403.8.camel@state.g2switchworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:42:58 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.143 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.142, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.143 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/504 X-Sequence-Number: 17941 On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 04:16, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 10:14:24AM +0100, Edoardo Serra wrote: > > >Now, for the interesting test. Run the import on both machines, with > > >the begin; commit; pairs around it. Halfway through the import, pull > > >the power cord, and see which one comes back up. Don't do this to > > >servers with data you like, only test machines, obviously. For an even > > >more interesting test, do this with MySQL, Oracle, DB2, etc... > > > > I will surely run a test like this ;) > > If you do, I'd be *very* interested in the results. Pervasive would > probably pay for a whitepaper about this, btw (see > http://www.pervasivepostgres.com/postgresql/partners_in_publishing.asp). Hehe. good luck with it. At the last company I worked at I was the PostgreSQL DBA, and I could not get one single Oracle, DB2, MySQL, MSSQL, Ingres, or other DBA to agree to that kind of test. 6 months later, when all three power conditioners blew at once (amazing what a 1/4" piece of wire can do, eh?) and we lost all power in our hosting center, there was one, and only one, database server that came back up without errors, and we know which one that was. No other database there was up in less than 2 hours. So, I wandered the floor watching the folks panic who were trying to bring their systems back up. And you know what? They still didn't want to test their systems for recovery from a power loss situation.