Re: intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2

From: pgsql-gen Newsgroup ((at)Basebeans(dot)com) <pgsql-gen(at)basebeans(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2
Date: 2002-04-29 04:10:01
Message-ID: 200204290410.g3T4A1B10828@basebeans.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Subject: Re: [GENERAL] intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2
From: Vic Cekvenich <vic(at)basebeans(dot)com>
===

Or a disk caching controler (like Mylex or Penging Computing)
Any DB is IO bound.

Michael Loftis wrote:
>
>
> Curt Sampson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 postgres(at)vrane(dot)com wrote:
>>
>>> Another gripe I have is that vacuum process does not eat up 100%
>>> of cpu. In the beginning it peaks around 80% and at the end
>>> it is stuck around 20%.
>>>
>>
>> That's because your disk subsystem is too slow for the machine.
>> Put in a disk subsystem that doesn't slow down the machine, and
>> you'll use all your CPU.
>>
>> Then you can complain about not using all your disk I/O capacity.
>>
>> Performance bottlenecks never go away. You can only move them around.
>>
> Thats why we all call it "chasing the brass ring" :)
>
>>
>> cjs
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Loftis 2002-04-29 04:39:03 Re: OIDs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-29 03:47:19 Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning