| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff <threshar(at)threshar(dot)is-a-geek(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
| Date: | 2010-02-11 01:52:08 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.00.1002101749150.4721@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Greg Smith wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> I'd love to see someone do a comparison of early to mid 2.6 kernels (2.6.18
>> like RHEL5) to very
>> up to date 2.6 kernels. On fast hardware.
>
> I'd be happy just to find fast hardware that works on every kernel from the
> RHEL5 2.6.18 up to the latest one without issues.
it depends on your definition of 'fast hardware'
I have boxes that were very fast at the time that work on all these
kernels, but they wouldn't be considered fast by todays's standards.
remember that there is a point release about every 3 months, 2.6.33 is
about to be released, so this is a 3 x (33-18) = ~45 month old kernel.
hardware progresses a LOT on 4 years.
most of my new hardware has no problems with the old kernels as well, but
once in a while I run into something that doesn't work.
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bryce Nesbitt | 2010-02-11 01:52:28 | Re: Re: 512,600ms query becomes 7500ms... but why? Postgres 8.3 query planner quirk? |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-02-11 01:46:03 | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |