From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Using IOZone to simulate DB access patterns |
Date: | 2009-04-10 16:00:33 |
Message-ID: | 1239379233.19518.361.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 17:09 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/3/09 4:12 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I've been using Bonnie++ for ages to do filesystem testing of new DB
> > servers. But Josh Drake recently turned me on to IOZone.
>
> Related to this: is IOZone really multi-threaded? I'm doing a test run
> right now, and only one CPU is actually active. While there are 6
> IOZone processes, most of them are idle.
In order to test real interactivity (AFAIK) with iozone you have to
launch multiple iozone instances. You also need to do them from separate
directories, otherwise it all starts writing the same file. The work I
did here:
Was actually with multiple bash scripts firing separate instances. The
interesting thing here is the -s 1000m and -r8k. Those options are
basically use a 1000 meg file (like our data files) with 8k chunks (like
our pages).
Based on your partitioning scheme, what is the break out? Can you
reasonably expect all partitions to be used equally?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> --Josh
>
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-04-10 17:07:49 | Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-10 13:50:37 | Re: Shouldn't the planner have a higher cost for reverse index scans? |