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

Re: benchmarks with pgbench

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: "Kavan, Dan (IMS)" <KavanD(at)imsweb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: benchmarks with pgbench
Date: 2005-01-24 17:12:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 10:48, Kavan, Dan (IMS) wrote:
>       Hi Guys,
> I''ve been running pgbench tests for a while.  I have one server set up
> to run pgbench tpc tests (7.x).  A new server that I just configured
> with SUSE and 8.0.0 just gets killed even though it has the same memory
> 8 GB and it's a x86-64 box.  The other one is Solaris full 64-bit.  That
> seems reasonable, but we thought postgres would run better on a linux
> box than solaris.  Also, the x86-64 box does much worse than  a 32-bit
> linux box with mandrake and a lot less RAM.  I've restarted postgres
> with many different postgresql.conf configs and nothing seems to make
> much of a difference to pgbench.  Has anyone else experienced slower
> performance on 64-bit linux as compared to 32-bit linux?

pgbench is notorious for providing poor measure of a database's
performance under real world load.  Are you sure your Solaris and Linux
boxes are both running on SCSI hard drives (IDE drives are well known
for not obeying fsync() calls, but simply saying "yep, synced that data"
when in fact they haven't.  So, if you Linux box is set to both fsync
properly AND is writing access time to each file, it may be quite a bit
slower than a Solaris box if that box is writing to IDE drives, has
fsync turned off, and / or has access time writing disabled.

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-01-24 18:05:00
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.0 Backups
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2005-01-24 17:09:25
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.0 Backups

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group