Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgNf8-000813-Ku for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:41:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgNf7-0001Iz-Ma for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:41:53 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgNf6-0001Is-Jz for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:41:52 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgNf4-0002FR-MG for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:41:51 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgNf2-0008EI-PB; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:41:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:41:48 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: Shaun Thomas Cc: Daniel Farina , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Ubuntu 12.04 / 3.2 Kernel Bad for PostgreSQL Performance Message-ID: <20121205224148.GC30887@momjian.us> References: <50BF9247.2010800@optionshouse.com> <50BFC9D8.4010507@optionshouse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50BFC9D8.4010507@optionshouse.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 04:25:28PM -0600, Shaun Thomas wrote: > On 12/05/2012 04:19 PM, Daniel Farina wrote: > > >Is 3.2 a significant regression from previous releases, or is 3.4 just > >faster? Your wording only indicates that "older kernel is slow," but > >your tone would suggest that you feel this is a regression, cf. > > It's definitely a regression. I'm trying to pin it down, but the > 3.2.0-24 kernel didn't do the CPU drain down to single-digits on > that client load test. I'm working on 3.2.0-30 and going down to > figure out which patch might have done it. > > Older kernels performed better. And by older, I mean 2.6. Still not > 3.4 levels, but that's expected. I haven't checked 3.0, but other > threads I've read suggest it had less problems. Sorry if I wasn't > clear. Ah, that is interesting about 2.6. I had wondered how Debian stable would have performed, 2.6.32-5. This relates to a recent discussion about the appropriateness of Ubuntu for database servers: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-11/msg00358.php Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance