From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 05:16:17 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8432237B401 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 05:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABCA43F75 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 05:16:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from fwd10.aul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 19eZa4-0000sI-0D; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:15:52 +0200 Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (GzzvCyZerefJNz1HeoT4W2fLLD8lmJSbiCA1e31OS9-8Coq9ryuicH@[217.83.17.126]) by fmrl10.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 19eZZs-0q8gxE0; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:15:40 +0200 Received: from Magelan.Leidinger.net (Magelan [192.168.1.1]) h6LCFd9P019942; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:15:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from Magelan.Leidinger.net (netchild@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Magelan.Leidinger.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6LCFisO000920; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:15:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:15:44 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Tom Samplonius Message-Id: <20030721141544.4ef4a0d6.Alexander@Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20030720112550.GO24507@perrin.int.nxad.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.3claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Seen: false X-ID: GzzvCyZerefJNz1HeoT4W2fLLD8lmJSbiCA1e31OS9-8Coq9ryuicH@t-dialin.net cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tuning for PostGreSQL Database X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:16:17 -0000 On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Tom Samplonius wrote: > Well, 5.1 is considerably less crippled by Giant than 4.8. Well, > "crippled" is not a good description. "Impaired" is better. 5.1 SMP > performance is less Giant impaired than 4.8. That's a good thing. The critical parts for the desired operations are still covered by the Giant lock (e.g. tcp stack, ata subsystem). > > over takes 4.X in terms of speed, is the subject of great debate, but > > many are optimistic that it will be at some point, just not at the > > moment. 5.X, will however (and without much doubt), scale much better > > than 4.X on multiple processor machines, though I'm not sure where > > that stands at the moment in terms of being completed and should > > likely be directed to current@ or questions@ instead of here. -sc > > Yes, 5.1 is better on multiple CPUs. So if 5.1 works for you, it is > going to work faster than 4.8 on SMP. Did you measured that, and if yes, which set of operations do you have banchmarked? On -current we still have reports that 5.1 is still not as fast as 4.8 (and nobody @FreeBSD.org is surprised, as the target is to first get a stable 5.x line and after that a fast&stable one). Bye, Alexander. -- Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7