From: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
To: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:36:18 +0000
Message-ID: <87iqm7f4gd.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49C0384E.2020707@sun.com>
References: <49B824DD.7090302@sun.com>
<49B7F470.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
<29080.1236821556@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<49B87161.10201@sun.com>
<1237225198.3963.60.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<49C01900.5030406@sun.com>
<1237330778.3953.139.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
<49C0384E.2020707@sun.com>
"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
> In next couple of weeks I plan to test the patch on a different x64 based
> system to do a sanity testing on lower number of cores and also try out other
> workloads ...
I'm actually more interested in the large number of cores but fewer processes
and lower max_connections. If you set max_connections to 64 and eliminate the
wait time you should, in theory, be able to get 100% cpu usage. It would be
very interesting to track down the contention which is preventing that.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: stark@enterprisedb.com, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
In-Reply-To: <87iqm7f4gd.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox