Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?

From: Mark Kirkwood
Subject: Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 4C1AF3E8.4030608@catalyst.net.nz
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?  (Greg Smith)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?  (Mark Kirkwood, )
 Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?  (Greg Smith, )
  Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?  (Mark Mielke, )
   Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?  (Greg Smith, )
  Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?  (Mark Kirkwood, )

On 18/06/10 15:29, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> P.S. Be wary of expecting pgbench to give you useful numbers on a
> single run.  For the default write-heavy test, I recommend three runs
> of 10 minutes each (-T 600 on recent PostgreSQL versions) before I
> trust any results it gives.  You can get useful data from the
> select-only test in only a few seconds, but not the one that writes a
> bunch.
>

Yeah, I did several runs of each, and a couple with -c 128 and -t 100000
to give the setup a good workout (also 2000-2400 tps, nice to see a well
behaved SAN).


Cheers

Mark


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: wal_synch_method = open_sync safe on RHEL 5.5?
From: Matthew Wakeling
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL as a local in-memory cache