Re: Question on pgbench output

От: Tom Lane
Тема: Re: Question on pgbench output
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 24448.1238797838@sss.pgh.pa.us
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Scott Marlowe, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Greg Smith, )
  Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (Simon Riggs, )
     Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
       Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (Greg Smith, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )

David Kerr <> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 04:43:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - How much more "real" is the target hardware than what you have?
> - You appear to need about a factor of 10 better disk throughput than
> - you have, and that's not going to be too cheap.

> The hardware i'm using is a 5 or 6 year old POS IBM Blade. we haven't
> specced the new hardware yet but I would say that it will be sigificantly
> better.

The point I was trying to make is that it's the disk subsystem, not
the CPU, that is going to make or break you.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Greg Smith
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Question on pgbench output
От: Scott Carey
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Raid 10 chunksize