| From: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "M(dot) Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb(at)cesmail(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgresql 8.3 tps rate |
| Date: | 2009-01-26 12:18:23 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.10.0901261212080.4317@aragorn.flymine.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Actually, this isn't so much a 'pgbench' exercise as it is a source of
> 'real-world application' data for my Linux I/O performance visualization
> tools. I've done 'iozone' tests, though not recently. But what I'm
> building is an I/O analysis toolset, not a database application.
Are these performance results when the analysis tools are active or
inactive? Have you investigated whether the analysis tools might be
slowing the I/O down at all?
> ...they told me that it was because the drive was re-ordering operations
> according to its own internal scheduler!
A modern SATA drive with native queuing will do that. SCSI drives have
been doing that for twenty years or so.
Matthew
--
I pause for breath to allow you to get over your shock that I really did cover
all that in only five minutes... -- Computer Science Lecturer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2009-01-26 13:50:59 | Re: strange index performance? |
| Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-01-26 12:09:55 | Re: [PERFORMANCE] Buying hardware |