Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> If this is on Linux, I am surprised
>>> that you didn't get killed by the lseek() contention problem on a
>>> machine with that many cores.
>> Hm ... now that you mention it, all of these tests have been using
>> the latest-and-greatest unreleased RHEL kernels.
> It should be pretty easy to figure it out, though. Just fire up
> pgbench with lots of clients (say, 160) and run vmstat in another
> window. If the machine reports 10% system time, it's fixed. If it
> reports 90% system time, it's not.
I ran it up to "pgbench -c 200 -j 200 -S -T 300 bench" and still see
vmstat numbers around 50% user time, 12% system time, 38% idle.
So no lseek problem here, boss. Kernel calls itself 2.6.32-192.el6.x86_64.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-08-30 22:36:41|
|Subject: Re: spinlocks on HP-UX|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-08-30 22:07:26|
|Subject: Re: Comparing two PostgreSQL databases -- order of pg_dump output |