From: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TCP network cost |
Date: | 2009-02-19 13:09:04 |
Message-ID: | op.upln5emacigqcu@soyouz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> python w/ psycopg (or psycopg2), which wraps libpq. Same results w/
> either version.
I've seen psycopg2 saturate a 100 Mbps ethernet connection (direct
connection with crossover cable) between postgres server and client during
a benchmark... I had to change the benchmark to not retrieve a large TEXT
column to remove this bottleneck... this was last year so versions are
probably different, but I don't think this matters a lot...
> Note the 'bare' transfer times added above. Nothing to write home about
> (~3Mb/sec) but another order of magnitude faster than the postgresql
> transfer.
You should test with sending a large (>100 MB) amount of data through
Netcat. This should give you your maximum wire speed. Use /dev/null as the
test file, and use "pv" (pipe viewer) to measure throughput :
box 1 : pv < /dev/zero | nc -lp 12345
box 2 : nc (ip) 12345 >/dev/null
On gigabit lan you should get 100 MB/s, on 100BaseT about 10 MB/s. If you
dont get that, there is a problem somewhere (bad cable, bad NIC, slow
switch/router, etc). Monitor CPU during this test (vmstat). Usage should
be low.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2009-02-20 09:56:05 | not in(subselect) in 8.4 |
Previous Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2009-02-18 20:14:44 | Re: suggestions for postgresql setup on Dell 2950 , PERC6i controller |