Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153EB2E00CD for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:00:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10973-04 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:00:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from el-out-1112.google.com (el-out-1112.google.com [209.85.162.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 392422E0060 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:00:23 -0400 (AST) Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id r27so260945ele for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:00:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=mg3/UrXyE2lmYcXjLIZ/MvAXTNrMphIO4qZhjnafb40=; b=Bb66Fpv6gV7kizHNkEwXbHuAyfeQIvrg9yIu/yJtvEhfpc08yMz3bTF7OXk/Fm3DBbpYbexAD7Q1nrmCyVdJuSdV9Lhga1JizY5W205Hkf8f1YPbo/CQ3ipRoOZ2sn4xhWILyanrjtQpW1+tT49NQawNNCSqwBrw9gRhqnWQQ5s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=IQU8ILAOGb7mI+Zh7Mi1k/1sVGxDOFaGmYSnDs/qKixDuKhiEfFAcEwQt4DR4iedGvjuO4K8yGmjzMbV4r+5dZzmk7aMw3LE1Yu3bMm3/1Roqvc43Okc7E/ZqBdL++mqbS3iYPO4VB//vfo6Z0mklkGT4ClYqAKhw+BwmeLCdK4= Received: by 10.78.184.2 with SMTP id h2mr3588674huf.1196118020996; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:00:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.202.10 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:00:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <88daf38c0711261500v3f0709d6k2d8d83996a7271dd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:00:20 +0100 From: "Alexander Staubo" To: "Damon Hart" Subject: Re: PostgreSQL performance on various distribution stock kernels Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1196117408.19996.16.camel@xw1.bbd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1196117408.19996.16.camel@xw1.bbd> X-Google-Sender-Auth: b00af12a0e38073b X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/308 X-Sequence-Number: 27723 On 11/26/07, Damon Hart wrote: > So, what's different between these tests? I'm seeing performance > differences of between +65% to +90% transactions per second of the > OpenVZ kernel running on the HN over the stock Fedora 8 kernel. Is > this reflective of different emphasis between RHEL and Fedora kernel > builds? Some OpenVZ optimization on top of the RHEL5 build? Something > else? Where should I look? A recent FreeBSD benchmark (which also tested Linux performance) found major performance differences between recent versions of the kernel, possibly attributable to the new so-called completely fair scheduler: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-11/msg00132.php No idea if it's relevant. Alexander.