| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, cedric(dot)villemain(at)dalibo(dot)com, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
| Date: | 2009-02-20 18:09:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1235153374.31546.93.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:57 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> > But you are right that there isn't a simple formula.
>
> Perhaps the greater of the number of CPUs or effective spindles?
>
> (24 sounds suspiciously close to effective spindles on a 50 spindle
> box
> with RAID 10.)
It does except that you aren't accounting for 7200RPM vs 10k vs 15k vs
iSCSI vs FibreChannel etc...
You would have to literally do the math to figure it all out. Those 50
spindles were DAS. You go iSCSI and all of a sudden you have turned
those 50 spindles into and effective 8 DAS spindles. Not to mention if
you only have a single path for your FibreChannel etc...
Joshua D. Drake
>
> -Kevin
>
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-02-20 19:53:37 | return query/composite types |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-02-20 17:57:18 | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |