linux-kernel - Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805231418140.3708@westnet.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 May 2008 14:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Greg Smith <gsmith@...gsmith.com>
To:	Anton Petrusevich <casus@...us.us>
cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL pgbench performance regression in 2.6.23+

On Fri, 23 May 2008, Anton Petrusevich wrote:

> Excuse me for interrupting you, but am I getting this right: to run
> effectively PostgreSQL with an active web app on the server a "system
> administrator Joe" has to know about batch scheduling?

That's not true.  The problem here is specifically with the pgbench 
program, which is a simple benchmarking tool included with PostgreSQL. 
pgbench already had known scalability problems due to its inefficient 
design and the new scheduler really doesn't play well with it by default. 
It's the pgbench program that needs the batch scheduling, not the database 
processes.

pgbench is certainly not representative of web application performance, 
and it wouldn't be the first time there was some OS tweaking required to 
get good results from such an artificial benchmark.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@...gsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/