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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-05-04 20:48:07
Message-ID: 1273006088.4535.2932.camel@ebony (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 21:34 +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:

> FWIW - I'm seeing a behaviour here under pgbench -S workloads that looks 
> kinda related.
> using -j 16 -c 16 -T 120 I get either 100000tps and around 660000 
> contextswitches per second or on some runs I end up with 150000tps and 
> around 1M contextswitches/s sustained. I mostly get the 100k result but 
> once in a while I get the 150k one. And one even can anticipate the 
> final transaction rate from watching "vmstat 1"...
> I'm not sure yet on what is causing that behaviour but that is with 
> 9.0B1 on a Dual Quadcore Nehalem box with 16 cpu threads (8+HT) on a 
> pure in-memory workload (scale = 20 with 48GB RAM).

Educated guess at a fix: please test this patch. It's good for
performance testing, but doesn't work correctly at failover, which would
obviously be addressed prior to any commit.

 Simon Riggs 

Attachment: knownrecoverystate.patch
Description: text/x-patch (1.4 KB)

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gurjeet SinghDate: 2010-05-04 20:48:12
Subject: GUCs that need restart
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-05-04 20:06:58
Subject: Re: Pause/Resume feature for Hot Standby

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