X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DCF11F65A2 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:03:10 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -0.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.467 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.684, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=2.432, SPF_SOFTFAIL=1.384] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TzVkQSyqNAoC for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:02:51 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F3211F655C for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:02:50 -0300 (ADT) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [64.81.245.111] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO [192.168.1.27]) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 9263986; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:05:51 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: "Jignesh K. Shah" Subject: Re: bad performance on Solaris 10 Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:01:25 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <200604130839.k3D8dZQ26118@candle.pha.pa.us> <443FAB62.7010307@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <443FAB62.7010307@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604141201.26080.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Archive-Number: 200604/342 X-Sequence-Number: 18426 Jignesh, > Don't get me wrong. As Luke mentioned it took a while to get the > potential of PostgreSQL on Solaris and people like me start doing other > complex workarounds in Solaris like "forcedirectio", etc. (Yeah I did a > test, if you force fsync as wal_sync_method while on Solaris, then > you may not even require to do forcedirectio of your $PGDATA/pg_xlogs to > get back the lost performance) I didn't see these later test results. Can you link? Also, I presume this was on DW, and not on OLTP, yes? -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco