| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| Date: | 2010-10-07 02:07:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20101007020707.GP26232@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> It's good to be you.
They're HP BL465 G7's w/ 2x 12-core AMD processors and 48G of RAM.
Unfortunately, they currently only have local storage, but it seems
unlikely that would be an issue for this.
> I don't suppose you could try to replicate the lseek() contention?
I can give it a shot, but the impression I had from the paper is that
the lseek() contention wouldn't be seen without the changes to the lock
manager...? Or did I misunderstand?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Singer | 2010-10-07 02:21:51 | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-07 02:01:20 | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sander, Ingo (NSN - DE/Munich) | 2010-10-07 04:11:52 | Re: Runtime dependency from size of a bytea field |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-07 02:01:20 | Re: [HACKERS] MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |