| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, selvi88 <selvi(dot)dct(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres performance tunning |
| Date: | 2011-01-06 21:41:32 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=ZAyRYfjUofYXpLdR5Aq+xX3Q38ALgjhrvdr7f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>> I can sustain about 5,000 transactions per second on a machine with 8
>>> cores (2 years old) and 14 15k seagate hard drives.
>>
>> Right. You can hit 2 to 3000/second with a relatively inexpensive system,
>> so long as you have a battery-backed RAID controller and a few hard drives.
>> Doing 5K writes/second is going to take a giant pile of hard drive or SSDs
>> to pull off. There is no possible way to meet the performance objectives
>> here without a lot more cores in the server and some pretty beefy storage
>> too.
>
> Is this with synchronous_commit on, or off?
Off. It doesn't seem to make a lot of difference one you're running
on a good battery backed caching RAID controller.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-01-06 21:41:55 | Re: postgres performance tunning |
| Previous Message | Mike Broers | 2011-01-06 21:36:00 | Re: plan question - query with order by and limit not choosing index depends on size of limit, table |