From: | Thomas Graichen <news-list(dot)pgsql(dot)hackers(at)innominate(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL on multi-CPU systems |
Date: | 2001-03-13 07:24:20 |
Message-ID: | news2mail-98khv4$uef$1@mate.bln.innominate.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> I have tested PostgreSQL with 2-4 CPU linux boxes. In summary, 2 CPU
>> was a big win, but 4 was not. I'm not sure where the bottle neck is
>> though.
> Our not-very-good implementation of spin locking (using select() to
> wait) might have something to do with this. Sometime soon I'd like to
> look at using POSIX semaphores where available, instead of spinlocks.
did anyone from here follow the discussion about postgresql on
smp machines on the linux kernel malinglist in the last days?
(just as an info)
t
--
thomas(dot)graichen(at)innominate(dot)com
innominate AG
the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak | 2001-03-13 07:30:59 | Re: Internationalized error messages |
Previous Message | Giles Lean | 2001-03-13 06:47:33 | Re: RE: xlog checkpoint depends on sync() ... seems uns afe |