| From: | Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slow restoration question |
| Date: | 2006-05-03 12:18:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20060503121847.GN31328@mathom.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 08:09:52PM -0600, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
>Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec % CPU /sec %CPU
> 0 40365 99.4 211625 61.4 212425 57.0 50740 99.9 730515 100.0 45897.9 190.1
[snip]
>Do these numbers seem decent enough for a Postgres database?
These numbers seem completely bogus, probably because bonnie is using a
file size smaller than memory and is reporting caching effects. (730MB/s
isn't possible for a single external RAID unit with a pair of 2Gb/s
interfaces.) bonnie in general isn't particularly useful on modern
large-ram systems, in my experience.
Mike Stone
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan de Visser | 2006-05-03 12:30:10 | Re: Performance Issues on Opteron Dual Core |
| Previous Message | Michael Stone | 2006-05-03 11:22:21 | Re: Why so slow? |