| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Turner <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Date: | 2005-11-17 20:39:55 |
| Message-ID: | 437CEA9B.6020401@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>> So what happens is that under reasonable load we are actually waiting
>> for the CPU to process the code.
>>
>>
>
> This is the performance profile for PHP, not for Postgresql. This is
> the post
And your point? PostgreSQL benefits directly from what I am speaking
about as well.
>> Performance of PHP, not postgresql.
>>
>>
Actually both.
> [snip]
>
> Running postgresql on a single drive RAID 1 with PHP on the same
> machine is not a typical installation.
>
Want to bet? What do you think the majority of people hosting at
rackshack, rackspace,
superrack etc... are doing? Or how about all those virtual hosts?
> 300ms for PHP in CPU time? wow dude - that's quite a page. PHP
> typical can handle up to 30-50 pages per second for a typical OLTP
> application on a single CPU box. Something is really wrong with that
> system if it takes 300ms per page.
>
There is wait time associated with that because we are hitting it with
50-100 connections at a time.
Joshua D. Drake
> Alex.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alan Stange | 2005-11-17 20:40:53 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
| Previous Message | William Yu | 2005-11-17 20:38:11 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |