Re: intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Michael Loftis
Subject Re: intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2
Date
Msg-id 3CCCAD7C.3060705@wgops.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: intel vs amd benchmark for pg server part 2  (Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>)
List pgsql-general

Curt Sampson wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 postgres@vrane.com wrote:
>
>>Another gripe I have is that vacuum process does not eat up 100%
>>of cpu.  In the beginning it peaks around 80% and at the end
>>it is stuck around 20%.
>>
>
>That's because your disk subsystem is too slow for the machine.
>Put in a disk subsystem that doesn't slow down the machine, and
>you'll use all your CPU.
>
>Then you can complain about not using all your disk I/O capacity.
>
>Performance bottlenecks never go away. You can only move them around.
>
Thats why we all call it "chasing the brass ring" :)

>
>cjs
>



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: icps, shmmax and shmall - Shared Memory tuning