On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:41:06 +0300 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> Oh, interesting. What kind of hardware are you running on? To be honest, > I'm not sure what my test hardware is, it's managed by another team > across the world, but /proc/cpuinfo says: > > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4640 0 @ 2.40GHz It claims to have 80 of these: model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-L8867 @2.13GHz Postgres is on ramfs on these with unlogged tables. > And it's running in a virtual machine on VMware; that might also be a > factor. I'm not a fan of virtualization. It makes performance even harder to reason about. > It would be good to test the TAS_SPIN nonlocked patch on a variety of > systems. The comments in s_lock.h say that on Opteron, the non-locked > test is a huge loss. In particular, would be good to re-test that on a > modern AMD system. I'll see what I can do. However I don't have acces to any large modern AMD systems. -dg -- David Gould 510 282 0869 da...@sonic.net If simplicity worked, the world would be overrun with insects. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
