From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Philippe Rimbault <primbault(at)edd(dot)fr> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop |
Date: | 2010-08-19 16:59:22 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimzFc1C78-67V7rfnv+BdmgDa+4-o=y9CWHdwmD@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Philippe Rimbault <primbault(at)edd(dot)fr> wrote:
>> So how are the disks setup anyway?
>>
>
> Thanks for your reply !
>
> The server use a HP Smart Array P410 with a Raid 5 array on Sata 133 disk.
If you can change that to RAID-10 do so now. RAID-5 is notoriously
slow for database use, unless you're only gonna do reporting type
queries with few updates.
> My desktop only use one Sata 133 disk.
> I was thinking that my simples queries didn't use disk but only memory.
No, butt pgbench has to write to the disk.
> I've launch a new pgbench with much more client and transactions :
>
> Server :
> postgres$ pgbench -c 400 -t 100
-c 400 is HUGE. (and as you mentioned in your later email, you need
to -s -i 400 for -c 400 to make sense) Try values in the 4 to 40
range and the server should REALLY outshine your desktop as you pass
12 or 16 or so.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-08-19 18:25:02 | Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-19 16:28:23 | Re: yet another q |