From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | markw(at)osdl(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: using stp for dbt2 + postgresql |
Date: | 2004-01-02 00:09:47 |
Message-ID: | 3FF4B6CB.8050009@colorfullife.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>markw(at)osdl(dot)org wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Manfred,
>>
>>Just wanted to let you know I tried your patch-spinlock-i386 patch on
>>our STP (our automated test platform) 8-way systems and saw a 5.5%
>>improvement with Pentium III Xeons. If you want to see those results:
>>
>>PostgreSQL 7.4.1:
>> http://khack.osdl.org/stp/285062/
>>
>>PostgreSQL 7.4.1 w/ your patch:
>> http://khack.osdl.org/stp/285087/
>>
>>
>
>Impressive. Thanks.
>
>
The best thing is that we can try our own postgres patches with SDT now:
this gives us a chance to run tests on up to 8-way systems, with 4 gb
memory, 40 spindles. From my experience, the typical turnaround time is
half a day - submit patch [web interface], start benchmark run, and
after a few ours you get a mail that contains the output. With oprofile,
it's very detailed - % cpu time for each function, down to individual
asm instructions, plus the ability for custom logging into the
postmaster log.
I think we should try to use that to find a cache replacement policy
that is SMP scalable, i.e. doesn't need a global lock - I searched a few
minutes on citeseer, but couldn't find anything that doesn't rely on
global lists.
--
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-01-02 02:50:46 | Re: cache in plpgsql |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-01 22:20:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Spinlock support for linux-hppa? |