From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 2 03:03:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E57716A402; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 03:03:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig@tobuj.gank.org) Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [69.55.238.164]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624ED13C46B; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 03:03:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from craig@tobuj.gank.org) Received: by ion.gank.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B843411A7F; Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:45:35 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:45:33 -0600 From: Craig Boston To: "Jim C. Nasby" Message-ID: <20070302024533.GA64754@nowhere> Mail-Followup-To: Craig Boston , "Jim C. Nasby" , Kris Kennaway , smp@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org References: <20070224213111.GB41434@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070227182511.GD29041@decibel.org> <20070227205951.GA56651@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070227221252.GD51916@decibel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070227221252.GD51916@decibel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: smp@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:03:45 -0000 On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 04:12:52PM -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 03:59:52PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > I've mentioned this a couple of times, but postgresql didn't scale > > well [on freebsd at least] when I tried it last year. I hope to > > revisit when I get time. > > Let me know if you need help when you get to that point. Keep in mind > that PostgreSQL's out-of-the-box configuration is pretty conservative, > so you won't get good numbers that way. I was kind of wondering that myself, especially as PostgreSQL uses a multi-process model rather than threads. It seems like it would benefit more from optimization of the Sys-V semaphores and shared memory. Craig