Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA6CBB5DD3
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  1 May 2012 10:42:24 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from li339-205.members.linode.com ([96.126.114.205]
	helo=squeakycode.net) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <andy@squeakycode.net>) id 1SPDLT-0005Mz-IH
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 01 May 2012 13:42:24 +0000
Received: from [192.168.10.84] (97-64-237-59.client.mchsi.com [97.64.237.59])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: andy)
	by squeakycode.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 624341785B;
	Tue,  1 May 2012 09:42:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4F9FE836.5010301@squeakycode.net>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 08:42:14 -0500
From: Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:12.0) Gecko/20120420 Thunderbird/12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
CC: "Walker, James Les" <JAWalker@cantor.com>,
	Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater@gmx.net>,
	"pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Tuning Postgres 9.1 on Windows
References: <21BFB59709EBB84DB412ED7F739FFD3B19E5E3@TBPINFN0203.cad.local>
	<CAHyXU0wSzBma5=X+fudsCJDiOoWtvVcH06YU_AbgugeorWhNFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<jnn219$oou$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<CAHyXU0wZJVeHbGDTRerh41iN6PfJNhDxvDJRdxbmUVx_U58JDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<21BFB59709EBB84DB412ED7F739FFD3B1AC2C2@TBPINFN0203.cad.local>
	<CAHyXU0xVG0foc24qeLexc54qtoVNuX8bMX1UcSP3foe3oUnexQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAHyXU0xVG0foc24qeLexc54qtoVNuX8bMX1UcSP3foe3oUnexQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201205/4
X-Sequence-Number: 46828

On 5/1/2012 8:06 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Walker, James Les<JAWalker@cantor.com>  wrote:
>> Exactly, if turning off fsync gives me 100 commits/sec then I know where my bottleneck is and I can attack it. Keep in mind though that I already turned off synchronous commit -- *really* dangerous -- and it didn't have any effect.
>
> well synchronous commit is not as dangerous:
> fsync off + power failure = corrupt database
> synchronous commit off + power failure = some lost transactions
>
> still waiting on the ssd model #.  worst case scenario is that you tps
> rate is in fact sync bound and you have a ssd without capacitor backed
> buffers (for example, the intel 320 has them); the probable workaround
> would be to set the drive cache from write through to write back but
> it would unsafe in that case.  in other words, tps rates in the triple
> digits would be physically impossible.
>
> another less likely scenario is you are having network issues
> (assuming you are connecting to the database through tcp/ip).  20
> years in, microsoft is still figuring out how to properly configure a
> network socket.
>
> merlin
>

Even if its all local, windows doesnt have domain sockets (correct?), so 
all that traffic still has to go thru some bit of network stack, yes?

-Andy