On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I understand it is natural for the response time of each transaction to
> double or more. But I think the throughput drop would be amortized among
> multiple simultaneous transactions. So, 50% throughput decrease seems
> unreasonable.
>
> If this thinking is correct, and some could kindly share his/her past
> performance evaluation results (ideally of DBT-2), I want to say to my
> acquaintance "hey, community people experience better performance, so you
> may need to review your configuration."
It seems theoretically possible to interleave the processing on both
sides but 50% reduction in throughput for latency bound transactions
seems to be broadly advertised as what to reasonably expect for sync
rep with 9.1.
9.2 beta is arriving shortly and when it does I suggest experimenting
with the new remote_write feature of sync_rep over non-production
workloads.
merlin