mirrors/postgres
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add to thread item.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Bruce Momjian 2001-06-28 15:19:11 +00:00
parent e0c9301c87
commit 9a162a39d9
1 changed files with 62 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

62
doc/TODO.detail/thread
View File

@ -578,3 +578,65 @@ Myron Scott
mkscott@sacadia.com mkscott@sacadia.com
From lamar.owen@wgcr.org Thu Jun 28 11:14:10 2001
Return-path: <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Received: from www.wgcr.org (IDENT:root@www.wgcr.org [206.74.232.194])
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f5SFE9U18758
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:14:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lowen.wgcr.org (IDENT:lowen@[10.1.2.3])
by www.wgcr.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/WGCR) with SMTP id LAA11879;
Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:14:14 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Process weight (was:Re: [GENERAL] Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:14:09 -0400
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
References: <200106272258.f5RMwIb26959@candle.pha.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200106272258.f5RMwIb26959@candle.pha.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <01062811140902.01118@lowen.wgcr.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: ORr
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 18:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I had almost given up on using Postgres for this system because under
> > Solaris, it just couldn't cut it (MySQL could do the work with one CPU
> > while Postgres took up even more CPU and required *both* CPUs to be
> > enabled), but when we moved the system to a Linux box, things worked
> > much better.
> Ah, back to a PostgreSQL topic. :-)
> My guess on this one is that Solaris is slower for PostgreSQL because
> process switching is _much_ heavier on Solaris than other OS's. This is
> because of the way they implemented processes in SVr4. They got quite
> heavy, almost requiring kernel threads so you weren't switching
> processes all the time.
Now, the question of the week:
Is supporting a thread model for an inefficient OS a desirable thing to do,
when more efficient OS kernels are available such as FreeBSD 4.x and Linux
2.4? My opinion is that our existing model, when used with a
connection-pooling frontend, is rather efficient. (Yes, I use a
connection-pooling frontend. Performance is rather nice, and I don't have to
have a full backend spawned for every page hit.)
In fact, on a Linux box threads show as processes. While I know that the
kernel actually supports themin a slightly different manner than processes,
they have more similarities than differences.
However, even on OS's where threads are supported, the mechanism to support
those threads must be an efficient one -- not all pthreads libraries are
created equal. Many are frontends (expensive ones, at that) for plain old
processes.
Does anyone know of a resource that details the 'weight' of processes for our
supported platforms? [reply off-list -- I'll be glad to summarize responses
to HACKERS, ADMIN, or PORTS, as appropriate, if desired.]
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11