From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |
Date: | 2004-10-14 04:29:19 |
Message-ID: | 416E009F.3010709@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 10/14/2004 12:22 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Which would require that shared memory is not allowed to be swapped out, and
>> that is allowed in Linux by default IIRC, not to completely distort the entire
>> test.
>
> Well if it's getting swapped out then it's clearly not being used effectively.
Is it really that easy if 3 different cache algorithms (PG cache, kernel
buffers and swapping) are competing for the same chips?
Jan
>
> There are APIs to bar swapping out pages and the tests could be run without
> swap. I suggested it only as an experiment though, there are lots of details
> between here and having it be a good configuration for production use.
>
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Garamond | 2004-10-14 05:00:34 | Re: Two-phase commit security restrictions |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-10-14 04:22:40 | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MikeSmialek2@Hotmail.com | 2004-10-14 17:01:38 | Performance on Win32 vs Cygwin |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2004-10-14 04:22:40 | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |