Re: TCP network cost
От | PFC |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TCP network cost |
Дата | |
Msg-id | op.upln5emacigqcu@soyouz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: TCP network cost ("Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: TCP network cost
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
> python w/ psycopg (or psycopg2), which wraps libpq. Same results w/ > either version. I've seen psycopg2 saturate a 100 Mbps ethernet connection (direct connection with crossover cable) between postgres server and client during a benchmark... I had to change the benchmark to not retrieve a large TEXT column to remove this bottleneck... this was last year so versions are probably different, but I don't think this matters a lot... > Note the 'bare' transfer times added above. Nothing to write home about > (~3Mb/sec) but another order of magnitude faster than the postgresql > transfer. You should test with sending a large (>100 MB) amount of data through Netcat. This should give you your maximum wire speed. Use /dev/null as the test file, and use "pv" (pipe viewer) to measure throughput : box 1 : pv < /dev/zero | nc -lp 12345 box 2 : nc (ip) 12345 >/dev/null On gigabit lan you should get 100 MB/s, on 100BaseT about 10 MB/s. If you dont get that, there is a problem somewhere (bad cable, bad NIC, slow switch/router, etc). Monitor CPU during this test (vmstat). Usage should be low.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: