Re: Benchmarking a large server

From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
To: David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org >> PGSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Benchmarking a large server
Date: 2011-05-10 00:46:14
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.00.1105091745010.25291@asgard.lang.hm
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, 9 May 2011, David Boreham wrote:

> On 5/9/2011 6:32 PM, Craig James wrote:
>> Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do you care? If you have 1TB RAM
>> and just a little more actual disk space, it seems like your database will
>> always be cached in memory anyway. If you "eliminate the cach effect,"
>> won't the benchmark actually give you the wrong real-life results?
>
> The time it takes to populate the cache from a cold start might be important.

you may also have other processes that will be contending with the disk
buffers for memory (for that matter, postgres may use a significant amount
of that memory as it's producing it's results)

David Lang

> Also, if it were me, I'd be wanting to check for weird performance behavior
> at this memory scale.
> I've seen cases in the past where the VM subsystem went bananas because the
> designers
> and testers of its algorithms never considered the physical memory size we
> deployed.
>
> How many times was the kernel tested with this much memory, for example ?
> (never??)
>
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aren Cambre 2011-05-10 02:12:20 Re: Postgres refusing to use >1 core
Previous Message Greg Smith 2011-05-10 00:45:41 Re: Benchmarking a large server