Re: benchmarks with pgbench

I hate to admit this publically, but I've been reading my results
backwards.

I was getting 100 tps on Solaris - postgres 64 bit and 300 tps on SUSE
postgres both x86-64.
So, 300 is better than 100 right? I was reading it backwards.
I was thinking 300 was the actual speed to process a certain amount of
transactions, but actually the x86-64 system is performing better than
all, not worse.

~Dj

Yes, they are both running on the same hardware - NAS.

On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 10:48, Kavan, Dan (IMS) wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I''ve been running pgbench tests for a while. I have one server set
> up to run pgbench tpc tests (7.x). A new server that I just
> configured with SUSE and 8.0.0 just gets killed even though it has the

> same memory 8 GB and it's a x86-64 box. The other one is Solaris full

> 64-bit. That seems reasonable, but we thought postgres would run
> better on a linux box than solaris. Also, the x86-64 box does much
> worse than a 32-bit linux box with mandrake and a lot less RAM. I've

> restarted postgres with many different postgresql.conf configs and
> nothing seems to make much of a difference to pgbench. Has anyone
> else experienced slower performance on 64-bit linux as compared to
> 32-bit linux?

pgbench is notorious for providing poor measure of a database's
performance under real world load. Are you sure your Solaris and Linux
boxes are both running on SCSI hard drives (IDE drives are well known
for not obeying fsync() calls, but simply saying "yep, synced that data"
when in fact they haven't. So, if you Linux box is set to both fsync
properly AND is writing access time to each file, it may be quite a bit
slower than a Solaris box if that box is writing to IDE drives, has
fsync turned off, and / or has access time writing disabled.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org