From: | Kenny H Klatt <kklatt(at)csd(dot)uwm(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Transaction tests on SMP Linux |
Date: | 2002-01-04 02:35:11 |
Message-ID: | 20020103203511.A22701@alpha3.csd.uwm.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:17:04PM +0100, Fredrik Estreen wrote:
Fredrik:
Not sure who or where this should go to, but here is what I did,
hope it makes some sense.. The box normally runs oracle, its not
busy at the moment.. I sent a copy to pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,
I think that is the correct address.
For the SMP test (I think it was using pgbench)
downloaded the 7.2b4 source
build postgres from source into /usr/local tree
manually started the db with defaults
build pgbench
hardware is a 2-processor Dell box, 1.2 GZ Zeon processors
4G memory with RAID SCSI disks
Linux seti 2.4.7-10smp #1 SMP Thu Sep 6 17:09:31 EDT 2001 i686 unknown
setup pgbench with : pgbench -i testdb -c 50 -t 40 -s 10
changed postgresql.conf parameters
wal_files = 4 # range 0-64
shared_buffers = 200 # 2*max_connections, min 16
test run as pgbench testdb -- output follows:
[kklatt(at)seti pgbench]$ pgbench testdb -c 50 -t 40 -s 10
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 10
number of clients: 50
number of transactions per client: 40
number of transactions actually processed: 2000/2000
tps = 101.847384(including connections establishing)
tps = 104.345472(excluding connections establishing)
Hope this makes some sense..
Kenny Klatt
Data Architect / Oracle DBA
University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Haroldo Stenger | 2002-01-04 03:05:46 | Re: shmctl portability problem |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2002-01-04 01:56:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 04:44:32 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-04 01:02:54 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |