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

Transaction tests on SMP Linux

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-odbc
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 11:17:04PM +0100, Fredrik Estreen wrote:
	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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Haroldo StengerDate: 2002-01-04 03:05:46
Subject: Re: shmctl portability problem
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2002-01-04 01:56:34
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Updated TODO item

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 04:44:32
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-04 01:02:54
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group