On 10/27/06, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
> > > 1 0 345732 29328 770980 12947212 0 0 20 16552 1223 3677 12 2 85 1
> > > 1 0 345732 29840 770520 12946924 0 0 20 29244 1283 2955 11 2 85 1
> > > 1 0 345732 32144 770560 12944436 0 0 12 16436 1204 2936 11 2 86 1
> > > 1 0 345732 33744 770464 12942764 0 0 20 16460 1189 2005 10 2 86 1
> > > 2 0 345732 32656 770140 12943972 0 0 16 7068 1057 3434 13 2 85 0
> > > 1 0 345732 34832 770184 12941820 0 0 20 9368 1170 3120 11 2 86 1
> > > 1 0 345732 36528 770228 12939804 0 0 16 32668 1297 2109 11 2 85 1
> > > 1 0 345732 29304 770272 12946764 0 0 16 16428 1192 3105 12 2 85 1
> > > 1 0 345732 30840 770060 12945480 0 0 20 16456 1196 3151 12 2 84 1
> > > 1 0 345732 32760 769972 12943528 0 0 12 16460 1185 3103 11 2 86 1
> >
> > It doesn't look like there's anything else running - the runnable "r" is
> > about 1. Your "bo" blocks output rate is about 16MB/s, so divide by 3 and
> > you're about in range with your 5MB/s COPY rate. The interesting thing is
> > that the I/O wait is pretty low.
> >
> > How many CPUs on the machine? Can you send the result of "cat
> > /proc/cpuinfo"?
>
> iirc, he is running quad opteron 885 (8 cores), so if my math is
> correct he can split up his process for an easy gain.
Are you saying that I should be able to issue multiple COPY commands
because my I/O wait is low? I was under the impression that I am I/O
bound, so multiple simeoultaneous loads would have a detrimental
effect ...