From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 27 09:50:30 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 3CD5A16A4BF; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A85E43FE3; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:50:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7RGo5rO026285; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:50:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)h7RGo5CT026282; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:50:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:50:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Bill Moran In-Reply-To: <3F4C143D.7000909@potentialtech.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:51:55 -0700 cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance tests I did with FreeBSD, Linux and PostgreSQL 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:50:30 -0000 On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bill Moran wrote: > Like all benchmarks, I doubt these are perfect (or even close) examples > of real-world use. > > However, in the hopes that they will be useful for improving FreeBSD, I > present them to the community. > > http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/postgresql.php > > Intelligent comments are welcome. I'd have to chime in here with two recommendations: (1) Try 4.8-STABLE (2) Try 5.1-CURRENT With a distinct preference for (1) before (2). Some parts of -CURRENT have gotten faster, others have gotten temporarily slower (new locks in place without Giant coming off them yet, which adds overhead). I'd also check your block sizes for interaction with Postgres and see if different block and fragment sizes help/hurt. It could be that postgres would benefit from different tuning parameters on FreeBSD, especially with newer UFS file systems. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories