On 10/09/14 18:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Mark Kirkwood
> <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz <mailto:mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>>
> wrote:
> >
> > In terms of the effect of the patch - looks pretty similar to the
> scale 2000 results for read-write, but read-only is a different and more
> interesting story - unpatched 9.4 is noticeably impacted in the higher
> client counts, whereas the patched version scales as well (or even
> better perhaps) than in the scale 2000 case.
>
> Yeah, that's what I was expecting, the benefit of this patch
> will be more at higher client count when there is large data
> and all the data can fit in RAM .
>
> Many thanks for doing the performance test for patch.
>
>
No worries, this is looking like a patch we're going to apply to 9.4 to
make the 60 core beast scale a bit better, so thanks very much for your
work in this area.
If you would like more tests run at higher scales let me know (we have
two of these machines at pre-production state currently so I can run
benchmarks as reqd)!
Regards
Mark