Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent

From: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Date: 2005-03-02 22:15:37
Message-ID: 20050302221537.GA28289@osdl.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Between those two runs, the vm parameters are the same.

Mark

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:04:21AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> OK. I doubt that it impacts the results of the particular test, but it 
> is non-intuitive (in my mind at least)
> Did you change anything else between 263 and 264? From the table it 
> appears that you are changing vm parameters
> as well as database configuration parameters between runs ?
> 
> Dave
> 
> Mark Wong wrote:
> 
> >Yes, those parameters are based on a series of test results here:
> >	http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/pgsql/rc4.html
> >
> >Run 264 provided the best results, so I'm trying to continue with the
> >database parameters used there.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:41:57AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>I was just looking at the config parameters, and you have the shared 
> >>buffers set to 60k, and the effective cache set to 1k ????
> >>
> >>Dave
> >>
> >>Mark Wong wrote:
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>>>Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>       
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Curious.  The immediate question is "does it ever flatten out, and
> >>>>>>if so at what TPM rate compared to 8.0.1?"  Could you run the same
> >>>>>>test for a longer duration?
> >>>>>>     
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>           
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>The comparison was against 8.0.1, or did you mean 8.0.1 with the 2Q
> >>>>>patch?  I can run a longer duration and see how it looks.
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>
> >>>>My point was that unpatched 8.0.1 seems to have a pretty level TPM
> >>>>rate.  If the patched version levels out at something not far below
> >>>>that, I'll be satisfied.  If it continues to degrade then I won't be
> >>>>satisfied ... but the test stops short of telling what will happen.
> >>>>If you could run it for 2 hours then we'd probably know enough.
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>       
> >>>>
> >>>Ah, ok.  I've reapplied the 2Q patch to CVS from 20050301:
> >>>	http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/313/
> >>>
> >>>I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens
> >>>out after 2 hours.
> >>>
> >>>Mark
> >>>     
> >>>
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> -- 
> Dave Cramer
> http://www.postgresintl.com
> 519 939 0336
> ICQ#14675561

-- 
Mark Wong - - markw(at)osdl(dot)org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
12725 SW Millikan Way - Suite 400 - Beaverton, OR 97005
(503) 626-2455 (office)
(503) 626-2436 (fax)
http://developer.osdl.org/markw/

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-03-03 00:03:02
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-03-02 21:51:21
Subject: Re: Vacuum time degrading

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group