Re: Question on pgbench output

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
Date: ,
Msg-id: 24448.1238797838@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Scott Marlowe, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Greg Smith, )
  Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (Simon Riggs, )
     Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
       Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (Greg Smith, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )

David Kerr <> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 04:43:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - How much more "real" is the target hardware than what you have?
> - You appear to need about a factor of 10 better disk throughput than
> - you have, and that's not going to be too cheap.

> The hardware i'm using is a 5 or 6 year old POS IBM Blade. we haven't
> specced the new hardware yet but I would say that it will be sigificantly
> better.

The point I was trying to make is that it's the disk subsystem, not
the CPU, that is going to make or break you.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
From: Scott Carey
Date:
Subject: Re: Raid 10 chunksize