On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:08 +0200, wrote:
>
> On our production server, I can insert 5000 tuples in 2100 ms.
>
> Single Xeon 2.6 Ghz
> 2 Gigs ram
> 3ware RAID 5 SATA drives array, 3 drives only :-((
> PG 8.0 - fsync off
>
> I do think inserting 5000 tuples in a second (i.e 5000 insert
> transactions, no bulk load) can be reached with well a configured SCSI
> RAID 10 array.
Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
Also worth noting is that this test was performed on a machine which as
a noise floor receives about 200 queries per second, which it was
serving during the test.
> Is pgcluster worth giving a try and can it be trusted for in a
> production environnement ?
> Will it be possible to get a sort of real-time application ?
From the design of pgcluster it looks like it adds in a significant
amount of additional communication so expect your throughput for a
single process to drop through the floor.
--
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
> My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
> single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
> Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
> about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
> machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:42 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
> > My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
> > single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
> > Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
> > about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
> > machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
>
> Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400?
Nope. You've not missed anything.
If I ran 10 processes and the requirement would be met.
--
I think his point was that 9 * 4 != 2400
Alex Turner
netEconomist
On Apr 6, 2005 2:23 PM, Rod Taylor <> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:42 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
> > > My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
> > > single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
> > > Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
> > > about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
> > > machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
> >
> > Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400?
>
> Nope. You've not missed anything.
>
> If I ran 10 processes and the requirement would be met.
> --
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:40 -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> I think his point was that 9 * 4 != 2400
Oh.. heh.. I didn't even notice that.
Can I pretend I did it in my head using HEX math and that it wasn't a
mistake?
> On Apr 6, 2005 2:23 PM, Rod Taylor <> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:42 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:18:29PM -0400, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > > Yeah, I think that can be done provided there is more than one worker.
> > > > My limit seems to be about 1000 transactions per second each with a
> > > > single insert for a single process (round trip time down the Fibre
> > > > Channel is large) but running 4 simultaneously only drops throughput to
> > > > about 900 per process (total of 2400 transactions per second) and the
> > > > machine still seemed to have lots of oomph to spare.
> > >
> > > Erm, have I missed something here? 900 * 4 = 2400?
> >
> > Nope. You've not missed anything.
> >
> > If I ran 10 processes and the requirement would be met.
> > --
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
--
