DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender;
	b=QwEj08XQYfCAAI9UuGAyMZWcdp8pLbXYPUT9KFMdqf7wC1kC9Jz/iUbShepr50/Ir3WZm0Oxyo/u3t2ZehhuvzfPVtSZOSnyidzlih1wDLML/S/BU8vr5VCDyw+GsHPnDfVX9MdvQNhat/10ZNV9Ab2XKGobe291liko6lfHnfc=
Message-ID: <46642B33.6030101@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:09:39 +0100
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070329)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: dbt2 NOTPM numbers
References: <466428F7.5010808@bluegap.ch>
In-Reply-To: <466428F7.5010808@bluegap.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> I'm currently playing with dbt2 and am wondering, if the results I'm 
> getting are reasonable. I'm testing a 2x Dual Core Xeon system with 4 GB 
> of RAM and 8 SATA HDDs attached via Areca RAID Controller w/ battery 
> backed write cache. Seven of the eight platters are configured as one 
> RAID6, one spare drive. That should leave five platters for distributing 
> read only accesses.
> 
> The NOTPM numbers I'm getting are suspiciously low, IMO, but maybe I'm 
> expecting too much. What do you think, is this reasonable or do I have 
> to twiddle with the configuration somewhat more?

There's clearly something wrong. The response times are ridiculously 
high, they should be < 5 seconds (except for stock level transaction) to 
pass a TPC-C test. I wonder if you built any indexes at all?

The configuration I'm running here has 3 data drives, and I'm getting 
reasonable results with ~100 warehouses, at ~1200 noTPM.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com