> > > BTW, I've got ~320tps with 50 clients inserting (int4, text[1-256])
> > > records into 50 tables (-B 16384, wal_buffers = 256) on Ultra10
> > > with 512Mb RAM, IDE (clients run on the same host as server).
> >
> > Not bad. What were you getting before these recent changes?
>
> As I already reported - with O_DSYNC this test shows 30% better
> performance than with fsync.
>
> (BTW, seems in all my tests I was using -O0 flag...)
Good data point. I could never understand why we would ever use the
normal sync if we had a data-only sync option available. I can imagine
the data-only being the same, but never slower.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
