Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00B1133616B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  6 Oct 2010 23:07:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 70614-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  7 Oct 2010 02:07:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from tamriel.snowman.net (tamriel.snowman.net [72.66.115.51])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 318F91336DB6
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  6 Oct 2010 23:07:08 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id CAD902228A; Wed,  6 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:07:07 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to
	48)performance
Message-ID: <20101007020707.GP26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <AANLkTimW2UgVPGw6MRUBj9HabvwmsmkZasL3hKv-nUJ2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101004175545.GA2690@csail.mit.edu>
	<4CAA21C7.1030701@agliodbs.com> <i8itbn$kre$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<AANLkTikXHJL+u9OdgiqCBQLB-bMcrkZeB1eEeyZqBPvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101007013012.GN26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<AANLkTi=AfTAwMv=WXdZeLzY0NNBZ1sJHDsDK+wmRMcVS@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/Ta7aTnt0awFX15n"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=AfTAwMv=WXdZeLzY0NNBZ1sJHDsDK+wmRMcVS@mail.gmail.com>
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
X-Info: http://www.snowman.net
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-1-amd64 (x86_64)
X-Uptime: 22:02:07 up 405 days, 13:27, 14 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.05,
	0.00
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201010/49
X-Sequence-Number: 40468


--/Ta7aTnt0awFX15n
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> It's good to be you.

They're HP BL465 G7's w/ 2x 12-core AMD processors and 48G of RAM.
Unfortunately, they currently only have local storage, but it seems
unlikely that would be an issue for this.

> I don't suppose you could try to replicate the lseek() contention?

I can give it a shot, but the impression I had from the paper is that
the lseek() contention wouldn't be seen without the changes to the lock
manager...?  Or did I misunderstand?

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--/Ta7aTnt0awFX15n
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkytK0sACgkQrzgMPqB3kijrQQCfUPfNz/RJg/jANoY2lWhR3a3P
2MoAnRteuzESTyJC7XcsTPL8n/1Hskc0
=d5Hp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/Ta7aTnt0awFX15n--