Are you testing this with Tom's code, you need to do a baseline measurement with 10 and then increase it, you will still get lots of cs, but it will be less.
Dave On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 20:03, Josh Berkus wrote: > Dave, > > > Yeah, I did some more testing myself, and actually get better numbers > > with increasing spins per delay to 1000, but my suspicion is that it is > > highly dependent on finding the right delay for the processor you are > > on. > > Well, it certainly didn't help here: > > procs memory swap io system cpu > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa > 2 0 0 14870744 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 187341 48 27 > 26 0 > 2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1030 126490 65 18 > 16 0 > 2 0 0 14867032 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1021 106046 72 16 > 12 0 > 2 0 0 14869912 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1025 90256 76 14 10 > 0 > 2 0 0 14870424 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1022 135249 63 22 > 16 0 > 2 0 0 14872664 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1023 131111 63 20 > 17 0 > 1 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 48 1024 155728 57 22 > 20 0 > 2 0 0 14871128 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1028 189655 49 29 > 22 0 > 2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1018 190744 48 29 > 23 0 > 2 0 0 14871064 123872 1129912 0 0 0 0 1027 186812 51 26 > 23 0 -- Dave Cramer 519 939 0336 ICQ # 14675561 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html