From: | Guido Neitzer <guido(dot)neitzer(at)pharmaline(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: t1000/t2000 sun-servers |
Date: | 2006-03-06 21:24:29 |
Message-ID: | 0EED23D8-4ECF-498B-8AF6-A453A0E34702@pharmaline.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 06.03.2006, at 21:10 Uhr, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> Like migrate all your postgresql databases to one T2000. You might
> see that your average response time may not be faster but it can
> handle probably all your databases migrated to one T2000.
>
> In essence, your single thread performance will not speed up on Sun
> Fire T2000 but you can certainly use it to replace all your
> individual postgresql servers in your organization or see higher
> scalability in terms of number of users handled with 1 server with
> Sun Fire T2000.
How good is a pgbench test for evaluating things like this? I have
used it to compare several machines, operating systems and PostgreSQL
versions - but it was more or less just out of curiosity. The real
evaluation was made with "real life tests" - mostly scripts which
also tested the application server itself.
But as it was it's easy to compare several machines with pgbench, I
just did the tests and they were interesting and reflected the real
world not as bad as I had thought from a "benchmark".
So, personally I'm interested in a simple pgbench test - perhaps with
some more ( > 50) clients simulated ...
cug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2006-03-06 22:11:29 | Re: t1000/t2000 sun-servers |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-03-06 20:51:46 | Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index |