| From: | Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm, Steve Clark <sclark(at)netwolves(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Date: | 2011-04-12 16:07:00 |
| Message-ID: | 812972.84286.qm@web26008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
--- On Tue, 12/4/11, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Wow, zero idle and zero wait, and single digit for
> system. Did you
> ever run those RAM speed tests? (I don't remember
> seeing results
> for that -- or failed to recognize them.) At this
> point, my best
> guess at this point is that you don't have the bandwidth to
> RAM to
> support the CPU power. Databases tend to push data
> around in RAM a
> lot.
I mentioned sysbench was giving me something like 3000 MB/sec on memory write tests, but nothing more.
Results from Greg Smiths stream_scaling test are here:
http://www.privatepaste.com/4338aa1196
>
> When I mentioned profiling, I was thinking more of oprofile
> or
> something like it. If it were me, I'd be going there
> by now.
>
Advice taken, it'll be my next step.
Glyn
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-04-12 16:12:37 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Previous Message | Glyn Astill | 2011-04-12 16:01:49 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |