From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200604121956.k3CJuH717290@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
In-Reply-To: <C0598B28.20EDA%llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 15:56:17 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Chris Mair <list@1006.org>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, markir@paradise.net.nz,
	Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Alvaro,
> 
> On 4/5/06 2:48 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 
> > This essentially means stopping all bgwriter activity, thereby deferring
> > all I/O until checkpoint.  Was this considered?  With
> > checkpoint_segments to 128, it wouldn't surprise me that there wasn't
> > any checkpoint executed at all during the whole test ...
> 
> Yes, many things about the Solaris UFS filesystem caused a great deal of
> pain over the 10 months of experiments we ran with Sun MDE.  Ultimately, the
> conclusion was that ZFS is going to make all of the pain go away.
> 
> In the meantime, all you can do is tweak up UFS and avoid I/O as much as
> possible.

It is hard to imagine why people spend so much time modifying Sun
machines run with acceptable performance when non-Sun operating systems
work fine without such hurtles.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +