X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162839DCB6B for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 18:11:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15312-04 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 18:11:32 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 426129DCB52 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 18:11:27 -0400 (AST) Received: from fe-amer-04.sun.com ([192.18.108.178]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k26MBU8u001699 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2006 15:11:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) id <0IVQ00K017P60W00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from J.K.Shah@Sun.COM) for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:11:30 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.148.9.88] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0IVQ00FIY8B5G1Y1@mail-amer.sun.com>; Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:11:30 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 17:11:29 -0500 From: "Jignesh K. Shah" Subject: Re: t1000/t2000 sun-servers In-reply-to: <0EED23D8-4ECF-498B-8AF6-A453A0E34702@pharmaline.de> To: Guido Neitzer Cc: Postgresql Performance Message-id: <440CB391.2090402@sun.com> Organization: Sun Microsystems MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <440C974D.7000808@sun.com> <0EED23D8-4ECF-498B-8AF6-A453A0E34702@pharmaline.de> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050322) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.091 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/48 X-Sequence-Number: 17485 pgbench according to me is more io write intensive benchmark. T2000 with its internal drive may not perform well with pgbench with a high load. If you are using external storage, try it out. I havent tried it out yet but let me know what you see. -Jignesh Guido Neitzer wrote: > On 06.03.2006, at 21:10 Uhr, Jignesh K. Shah wrote: > >> Like migrate all your postgresql databases to one T2000. You might >> see that your average response time may not be faster but it can >> handle probably all your databases migrated to one T2000. >> >> In essence, your single thread performance will not speed up on Sun >> Fire T2000 but you can certainly use it to replace all your >> individual postgresql servers in your organization or see higher >> scalability in terms of number of users handled with 1 server with >> Sun Fire T2000. > > > How good is a pgbench test for evaluating things like this? I have > used it to compare several machines, operating systems and PostgreSQL > versions - but it was more or less just out of curiosity. The real > evaluation was made with "real life tests" - mostly scripts which > also tested the application server itself. > > But as it was it's easy to compare several machines with pgbench, I > just did the tests and they were interesting and reflected the real > world not as bad as I had thought from a "benchmark". > > So, personally I'm interested in a simple pgbench test - perhaps with > some more ( > 50) clients simulated ... > > cug