| From: | Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
| Cc: | postgres(at)vrane(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2 |
| Date: | 2002-04-29 02:18:36 |
| Message-ID: | 3CCCAD7C.3060705@wgops.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Curt Sampson wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 postgres(at)vrane(dot)com wrote:
>
>>Another gripe I have is that vacuum process does not eat up 100%
>>of cpu. In the beginning it peaks around 80% and at the end
>>it is stuck around 20%.
>>
>
>That's because your disk subsystem is too slow for the machine.
>Put in a disk subsystem that doesn't slow down the machine, and
>you'll use all your CPU.
>
>Then you can complain about not using all your disk I/O capacity.
>
>Performance bottlenecks never go away. You can only move them around.
>
Thats why we all call it "chasing the brass ring" :)
>
>cjs
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-29 03:47:19 | Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2002-04-29 02:11:13 | Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning |