Re: bad performance on Solaris 10

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Chris Mair" <list(at)1006(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
Date: 2006-04-05 21:56:40
Message-ID: C0598B28.20EDA%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alvaro,

On 4/5/06 2:48 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> This essentially means stopping all bgwriter activity, thereby deferring
> all I/O until checkpoint. Was this considered? With
> checkpoint_segments to 128, it wouldn't surprise me that there wasn't
> any checkpoint executed at all during the whole test ...

Yes, many things about the Solaris UFS filesystem caused a great deal of
pain over the 10 months of experiments we ran with Sun MDE. Ultimately, the
conclusion was that ZFS is going to make all of the pain go away.

In the meantime, all you can do is tweak up UFS and avoid I/O as much as
possible.

- Luke

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message August Zajonc 2006-04-05 21:58:49 Re: Sun Fire T2000 and PostgreSQL 8.1.3
Previous Message Luke Lonergan 2006-04-05 21:54:13 Re: Sun Fire T2000 and PostgreSQL 8.1.3