On 03/18/09 17:16, Scott Carey wrote:
On 3/18/09 4:36 AM, "Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
In next couple of weeks I plan to test the patch on a different x64 based
system to do a sanity testing on lower number of cores and also try out other
workloads ...
I'm actually more interested in the large number of cores but fewer processes
and lower max_connections. If you set max_connections to 64 and eliminate the
wait time you should, in theory, be able to get 100% cpu usage. It would be
very interesting to track down the contention which is preventing that.
My previous calculation in this thread showed that even at 0 wait time, the
client seems to introduce ~3ms wait time overhead on average. So it takes
close to 128 threads in each test to stop the linear scaling since the
average processing time seems to be about ~3ms.
Either that, or the tests actually are running on a system capable of 128
threads.
Nope 64 threads for sure .. Verified it number of times ..
-Jignesh
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
-
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
-
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
