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

Re: scaling multiple connections

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: scaling multiple connections
Date: 2001-04-27 10:24:30
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20010427182430.0099d100@192.228.128.13 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 08:39 AM 26-04-2001 -0400, mlw wrote:
>I am getting a bit concerned about Postgres 7.1 performance with multiple
>connections. Postgres does not seem to scaling very well. Below there is a
list
>of outputs from pgbench with different number of clients, you will see that
>
>My postmaster start line looks like:
>/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -A0 -N 24 -B 4096 -i -S -D/sqlvol/pgdev -o -F
>-fs -S 2048

Maybe it's the -fs in your start up line.

I tried a similar start line as yours but without -fs and I get consistent
tps values for pgbench.

./pgbench -v  -c 1  -t 30 test
starting vacuum...end.
starting full vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 1
number of transactions per client: 30
number of transactions actually processed: 30/30
tps = 161.938949(including connections establishing)
tps = 180.060140(excluding connections establishing)
[lylyeoh(at)nimbus pgbench]$ ./pgbench -v  -c 3  -t 30 test
starting vacuum...end.
starting full vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 3
number of transactions per client: 30
number of transactions actually processed: 90/90
tps = 172.909666(including connections establishing)
tps = 189.845782(excluding connections establishing)
[lylyeoh(at)nimbus pgbench]$ ./pgbench -v  -c 4  -t 30 test
starting vacuum...end.
starting full vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 4
number of transactions per client: 30
number of transactions actually processed: 120/120
tps = 172.909417(including connections establishing)
tps = 189.319538(excluding connections establishing)

Tested machine is a Dell Poweredge 1300 uniprocessor PIII 500MHz with 128MB
RAM, and a single 9GB HDD.

With -fs there's a decrease, but not as marked as your case. So not sure if
it's really the problem.

Try that out.

Cheerio,
Link.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SBDate: 2001-04-27 10:40:23
Subject: AW: Re: scaling multiple connections
Previous:From: Alfred PerlsteinDate: 2001-04-27 06:54:39
Subject: Re: 7.1 vacuum

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