Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11FB64FDA5 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:05:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 77992-02-2 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:05:32 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from EXHUB018-2.exch018.msoutlookonline.net (exhub018-2.exch018.msoutlookonline.net [64.78.17.17]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83DC6504EC for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:05:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.47]) by EXHUB018-2.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.17]) with mapi; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:05:21 -0800 From: Scott Carey To: "jd@commandprompt.com" , Merlin Moncure CC: Scott Marlowe , Jean-David Beyer , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:05:18 -0800 Subject: Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Thread-Index: AclaO6Hwe08202CAQhqDTtBWXp6dxAADpahQ Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1228854042.13962.91.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C5642B9EF8Ascottrichrelevancecom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/91 X-Sequence-Number: 32127 --_000_C5642B9EF8Ascottrichrelevancecom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Which brings this back around to the point I care the most about: I/O per second will diminish as the most common database performance limiti= ng factor in Postgres 8.4's lifetime, and become almost irrelevant in 8.5's= . Becoming more CPU efficient will become very important, and for some, alrea= dy is. The community needs to be proactive on this front. This turns a lot of old assumptions on their head, from the database down t= hrough the OS and filesystem. We're bound to run into many surprises due t= o this major shift in something that has had its performance characteristic= s taken for granted for decades. > On 12/9/08 12:20 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > > So, at least in relative terms, 15k sas drives are not 'fast'. They > > are terribly, awfully, painfully slow. They are also not cheap in > > terms of $/IOPS. The end is near. > > > No doubt about it. I give it 24 months tops. > > Joshua D. Drake --_000_C5642B9EF8Ascottrichrelevancecom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [PERFORM] Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Which brings this back around to the point I care the most about:

I/O per second will diminish as the most common database performance limiti= ng factor in Postgres 8.4’s lifetime, and become almost irrelevant in= 8.5’s.
Becoming more CPU efficient will become very important, and for some, alrea= dy is.  The community needs to be proactive on this front.  
This turns a lot of old assumptions on their head, from the database down t= hrough the OS and filesystem.  We’re bound to run into many surp= rises due to this major shift in something that has had its performance cha= racteristics taken for granted for decades.

> On 12/9/08 12:20 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> > So, at least in relative terms, 1= 5k sas drives are not 'fast'. They
> > are terribly, awfully, painfully slow.  They are also not ch= eap in
> > terms of $/IOPS.  The end is near.
> >

> No doubt about it. I give it 24 months tops.
>
> Joshua D. Drake


--_000_C5642B9EF8Ascottrichrelevancecom_--