| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-26 07:43:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1272267789.4161.2919.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 23:52 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote:
> I'll try to repeat this pattern on other hardware; although
> if my tests were run with faulty hardware I wouldn't know how/why
> that would give the above effect (such a 'regular aberration').
> testing is more difficult than I thought...
Thanks again for your help.
Please can you confirm:
* Are the standby tests run while the primary is completely quiet?
* What OS is this? Can we use dtrace scripts?
Can anyone else confirm these test results: large scale factor and small
number of sessions?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-04-26 07:45:21 | Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-26 07:32:59 | Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby |