Message-ID: <5136958F.5050508@agliodbs.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:02:07 -0800
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: sniff test on some PG 8.4 numbers
References: 
 <CAKuK5J0f4O8s=2XmAB0to2mOoke4csnj48NDpy+5dYU9sW9WuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKuK5J0f4O8s=2XmAB0to2mOoke4csnj48NDpy+5dYU9sW9WuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org


> Do these basically sniff right?

Well, the read test seems reasonable.  I'm impressed by the speed of the
write test ... how large is the raid card cache?

And why 8.4?  Can you try 9.2?

> (NOTE: with barriers off, I get a slight increase - 10% - in the
> read-write test, and a larger *decrease* - 15% - with the read-only
> test @ 400. No change @ 100)

Oh, interesting.  Can you reproduce that? I wonder what would cause
read-only to drop without barriers ...

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance