Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > Pgsql Performance > Re: shared_buff...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 13 of 14 Topic 3991 of 4352
Post > Topic >>

Re: shared_buffers performance

by mendola@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gaetano Mendola) Apr 15, 2008 at 05:08 PM

Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Hi all,
> I started to do some performance tests (using pgbench) in order to
> estimate the DRBD impact on our servers, my plan was to perform some
> benchmarks without DRBD in order to compare the same benchmark with
> DRBD.
> I didn't perform yet the benchmark with DRBD and I'm already facing
> something I can not explain (I performed at the moment only reads test).
> 
> I'm using postgres 8.2.3 on Red Hat compiled with GCC 3.4.6.
> 
> I'm using pgbench with scaling factor with a range [1:500], my server
> has 4 cores so I'm trying with 16 client and 4000 transaction per
> client: pgbench -t 4000 -c 16 -S db_perf. I did 3 session using 3
different
> values of shared_buffers: 64MB, 256MB, 512MB  and my server has 2GB.
> 
> The following graph re****ts the results:
> 
> http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=totalid7.png
> 
> as you can see using 64MB as value for shared_buffers I'm obtaining
better
> results. Is this something expected or I'm looking in the wrong
direction?
> I'm going to perform same tests without using the -S option in pgbench
but
> being a time expensive operation I would like to ear your opinion first.

I have complete today the other benchmarks using pgbench in write mode as
well,
and the following graph resumes the results:

http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=totalwbn0.png

what I can say here the trend is the opposite seen on the read only mode
as
increasing the shared_buffers increases the TPS.

I still didn't upgrade to 8.2.7 as suggested by Greg Smith because I would
like
to compare the results obtained till now with the new one (simulations
running
while I write) using postgres on a "DRBD partition"; sure as soon the
current
tests terminate I will upgrade postgres.

If you have any suggestions on what you would like to see/know, just let
me know.

Regards
Gaetano Mendola



-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
 




 14 Posts in Topic:
shared_buffers performance
mendola@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-04-14 11:13:05 
Re: shared_buffers performance
stark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-14 11:56:47 
Re: shared_buffers performance
dev@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R  2008-04-14 12:25:45 
Re: shared_buffers performance
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-14 11:44:44 
Re: shared_buffers performance
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-04-14 15:31:54 
Re: shared_buffers performance
stark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-14 20:58:21 
Re: shared_buffers performance
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-14 16:08:48 
Re: shared_buffers performance
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-14 11:42:50 
Re: shared_buffers performance
Gaetano Mendola <mendo  2008-04-15 11:05:12 
Re: shared_buffers performance
Gaetano Mendola <mendo  2008-04-15 11:11:31 
Vacuum settings
dforums@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-04-20 19:48:53 
Re: Vacuum settings
alvherre@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-04-21 11:03:37 
Re: shared_buffers performance
mendola@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-04-15 17:08:02 
Re: Vacuum settings
gc@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gu  2008-04-21 17:31:03 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sun Oct 12 9:44:27 CDT 2008.