From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:30:38 -0400
Message-ID: <24448.1238797838@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090403211821.GB54342@mr-paradox.net>
References: <20090403195302.GA54342@mr-paradox.net>
<22047.1238791409@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20090403211821.GB54342@mr-paradox.net>
David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 04:43:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - How much more "real" is the target hardware than what you have?
> - You appear to need about a factor of 10 better disk throughput than
> - you have, and that's not going to be too cheap.
> The hardware i'm using is a 5 or 6 year old POS IBM Blade. we haven't
> specced the new hardware yet but I would say that it will be sigificantly
> better.
The point I was trying to make is that it's the disk subsystem, not
the CPU, that is going to make or break you.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dmk@mr-paradox.net
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
In-Reply-To: <24448.1238797838@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox