| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Alan Stange" <stange(at)rentec(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Date: | 2005-11-21 14:56:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1611.1132585006@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> OK - slower this time:
> We've seen between 110MB/s and 120MB/s on a wide variety of fast CPU
> machines with fast I/O subsystems that can sustain 250MB/s+ using dd, but
> which all are capped at 120MB/s when doing sequential scans with different
> versions of Postgres.
Luke, sometime it would be nice if you would post your raw evidence
and let other people do their own analysis. I for one have gotten
tired of reading sweeping generalizations unbacked by any data.
I find the notion of a magic 120MB/s barrier, independent of either
CPU or disk speed, to be pretty dubious to say the least. I would
like to know exactly what the "wide variety" of data points you
haven't shown us are.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alan Stange | 2005-11-21 14:57:59 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-11-21 08:12:55 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |