Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0846331A0 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:30:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25830-03 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:30:41 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96008633197 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:30:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n33MUcm9024449; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:30:39 -0400 (EDT) To: David Kerr cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output 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> Comments: In-reply-to David Kerr message dated "Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:18:21 -0700" Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:30:38 -0400 Message-ID: <24448.1238797838@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200904/86 X-Sequence-Number: 33453 David Kerr 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