| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kohei Kaigai <Kohei(dot)Kaigai(at)emea(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: fstat vs. lseek |
| Date: | 2011-08-08 17:29:27 |
| Message-ID: | 28447.1312824567@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Not really. I do have root access to a 64-core box at the moment, and
> I could probably get permission to reboot it, but if it didn't come
> back on-line that would be awkward.
Red Hat has some test hardware that I can use (... pokes around ...)
Hmm, this one looks promising:
Memory NUMA Nodes
64348 MB 4
Cpu
Vendor Model Name Family Model Stepping Speed Processors Cores Sockets Hyper
GenuineIntel Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4860 @ 2.27GHz 6 47 2 1064.0 80 40 4 True
If you can wrap something up to the point where someone else can
run it, I'll give it a shot.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2011-08-08 17:31:35 | Re: fstat vs. lseek |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-08-08 17:23:29 | Re: [RFC] Common object property boards |