Re: bad performance on Solaris 10 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
Date
Msg-id 200604121956.k3CJuH717290@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
List pgsql-performance
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> On 4/5/06 2:48 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> > This essentially means stopping all bgwriter activity, thereby deferring
> > all I/O until checkpoint.  Was this considered?  With
> > checkpoint_segments to 128, it wouldn't surprise me that there wasn't
> > any checkpoint executed at all during the whole test ...
>
> Yes, many things about the Solaris UFS filesystem caused a great deal of
> pain over the 10 months of experiments we ran with Sun MDE.  Ultimately, the
> conclusion was that ZFS is going to make all of the pain go away.
>
> In the meantime, all you can do is tweak up UFS and avoid I/O as much as
> possible.

It is hard to imagine why people spend so much time modifying Sun
machines run with acceptable performance when non-Sun operating systems
work fine without such hurtles.

--
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Craig A. James"
Date:
Subject: Re: FOREIGN KEYS vs PERFORMANCE
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Better index stategy for many fields with few values