| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <cedric(dot)villemain(at)dalibo(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
| Date: | 2009-02-20 17:57:18 |
| Message-ID: | 499E9A9E.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> the fastest restore time for
>> 220G was performed with 24 threads with an 8 core box.
>> It is important to point out that this was a machine with 50
spindles.
>> Which is where your bottleneck is going to be immediately after
solving
>> the CPU bound nature of the problem.
> But you are right that there isn't a simple formula.
Perhaps the greater of the number of CPUs or effective spindles?
(24 sounds suspiciously close to effective spindles on a 50 spindle
box
with RAID 10.)
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-02-20 18:09:34 | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
| Previous Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2009-02-20 17:37:06 | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |