On Monday, November 19, 2012 5:53 AM Jeff Janes wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote: > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:03 PM Jeff Janes wrote: > >>Run the modes in reciprocating order? >> Sorry, I didn't understood this, What do you mean by modes in reciprocating order?
> Sorry for the long delay. In your scripts, it looks like you always > run the unpatched first, and then the patched second.
Yes, thats true.
> By reciprocating, I mean to run them in the reverse order, or in random order.
Today for some configurations, I have ran by reciprocating the order. Below are readings: Configuration 16GB (Database) -7GB (Shared Buffers)
Here i had run in following order 1. Run perf report with patch for 32 client 2. Run perf report without patch for 32 client 3. Run perf report with patch for 16 client 4. Run perf report without patch for 16 client
Sorry, I haven't followed this thread at all, but the numbers (43171 and 57920) in the last two runs of @mv-free-list for 32 clients look aberrations, no ? I wonder if that's skewing the average.
I also looked at the the Results.htm file down thread. There seem to be a steep degradation when the shared buffers are increased from 5GB to 10GB, both with and without the patch. Is that expected ? If so, isn't that worth investigating and possibly even fixing before we do anything else ?
