From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 14 16:14:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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 6BFDA16A41F for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:14:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from arne_woerner@yahoo.com) Received: from web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.200.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E09F543D45 for ; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:14:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from arne_woerner@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 43005 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jan 2006 16:14:02 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=dlFuxB+9l5Y4k6XfhXzp3tyPLmT6IxQ8vhU41gMLFSwoyYFj/JpMzh+zUmnJ7rsNXWiDNx/bSwmVXlB3qA4tDQ3rznxQn8iBgBXO8bp5rjQ27WcrvWQAT84HhDYK+jecuFpvW9rf0TW7f1EQmzJW5jfraIZyI/vIZ5/vScIakKA= ; Message-ID: <20060114161402.43003.qmail@web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [213.54.74.99] by web30305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:14:02 PST Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 08:14:02 -0800 (PST) From: Arne Woerner To: Ivan Voras , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, slawek.zak@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <43C9110B.8070807@fer.hr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Subject: Re: Horrible PostgreSQL performance with NFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:14:03 -0000 --- Ivan Voras wrote: > Arne Woerner wrote: > > But why does switching from local disc > > to NFS makes the PostgreSQL performance > > so bad? > > A wild guess/try: does file locking work > properly with NFS and the filer? > I would recommend the following test in order to answer that question: Executing the shell script in appendix A of this email will test, if locking works, and how fast it is: % time ./lck-tst.sh % time ./lck-tst.sh -Arne appendix A: the script lck-tst.sh #!/bin/sh lockf -k $1 sleep 10 & sleep 3 lockf -k -s -t 0 $1 echo BAD || echo GOOD wait sts=`date +%s` i=0 while [ $i -lt 2000 ]; do i=`expr $i + 1` lockf -k $1 sleep 0 & done expr `date +%s` - $sts __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com