On May 3, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 08:09:52PM -0600, Brendan Duddridge wrote:
>> -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential
>> Input-- --Random--
>> -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --
>> Block--- --Seeks---
>> Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %
>> CPU /sec %CPU
>> 0 40365 99.4 211625 61.4 212425 57.0 50740 99.9
>> 730515 100.0 45897.9 190.1
> [snip]
>> Do these numbers seem decent enough for a Postgres database?
>
> These numbers seem completely bogus, probably because bonnie is
> using a file size smaller than memory and is reporting caching
> effects. (730MB/s isn't possible for a single external RAID unit
> with a pair of 2Gb/s interfaces.) bonnie in general isn't
> particularly useful on modern large-ram systems, in my experience.
>
Bonnie++ is able to use very large datasets. It also tries to figure
out hte size you want (2x ram) - the original bonnie is limited to 2GB.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>
http://www.jefftrout.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
