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 21:41:55 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=ownApbNimEq4bb0YO5vxE9E=sHkxnY-i0RMQS@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, that's ON not OFF. Turning it off doesn't seem to ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Carey | 2011-01-06 21:50:29 | Re: Wrong docs on wal_buffers? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2011-01-06 21:41:32 | Re: postgres performance tunning |