Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E842E0186 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:06:45 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91426-08 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:06:35 -0400 (AST) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.179]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2672E0188 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:06:41 -0400 (AST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m38so1125925waf for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:06:39 -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:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=gc/b3A+AMKvbBK63+nrB8SbEJnp072xvPphtzzpi1w0=; b=xf78kwyC+NASZrtadtU6nNNub/cXs1MJKccqllC1ke/ZkBDbsN7i+VfY3n2iznhanRamRXqOWiHbaSLg+YFcoOO0M5CxIRt0g1wO3+HKA7Rj4930QvdfJS7F9/J96526YtvKY1vmWRnDcqVy56nHL3mRGSOLWnRsrI0mJquhy8Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=wVA2UXQSIxK8fbeWfa1+2vvhjUzceR0fsLIlWdLSOybR0mKLLkafooEu3K1MCbG+RnMKvXbeaPEcc+HfEGPEs6QX+zfXXfLtZMNEA9hPoRpSkUfKhc3W4JyHeYJQqOaC9EMgRaYATOqbjARJAeP0Hbb6VhNOK9MVWCMfHioK9mY= Received: by 10.114.184.7 with SMTP id h7mr2743826waf.1196118399623; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:06:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.53.7 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:06:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:06:39 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Alexander Staubo" Subject: Re: PostgreSQL performance on various distribution stock kernels Cc: "Damon Hart" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <88daf38c0711261500v3f0709d6k2d8d83996a7271dd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1196117408.19996.16.camel@xw1.bbd> <88daf38c0711261500v3f0709d6k2d8d83996a7271dd@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200711/311 X-Sequence-Number: 27726 On Nov 26, 2007 5:00 PM, Alexander Staubo wrote: > 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 Yeah, I wondered about that too, but thought the completely fair scheduler was not on by default so didn't mention it. Hmmm. I wonder.