Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eF1iu-0005U2-QA for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:43:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eF1iu-0002Qt-Aa for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:43:40 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eF1it-0002Qk-RB for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:43:39 +0000 Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eF1ip-0002iA-Sq for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:43:39 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id y80so4584390wmd.0 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:43:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=AcopOVdRobtqCNRog3h8ekri9NdQ4J7E1FVpt24NVcA=; b=Acbz7aG0zGjMsTK+donbXLILx2QKEW74ekdgZpOYuBiQ2+YUf/zt5gNQm9FXukjdTM HoF4cx2IJZPgoD2MwttvJjKooOaOhRURYHmJ3kKexzNCqV1jqZN5UfgZloJdHqjIEUzm OJDdnSm8LqbB2/2S0eWxRL6UUSHkEeGFcdXuYgC5QFRYABfisr4rNjNcD2atumbjw5ZC 86E8kyP9Gejd0F4lRhrmm8dyM4Nd/5H/uKGCza/0OqrmrVvDsgyN9DuIaEaDQZtVubdu dQwUMHob33W/+ocsjNo24BPrKmpWb23aGifYM5P8eAtD6xVbBKRLgOX7P9d32o8D63/O nsQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=AcopOVdRobtqCNRog3h8ekri9NdQ4J7E1FVpt24NVcA=; b=XNWN1/gOeHo3QzC203eVKI3OrT235tAqRh9FuRUk/1/HfaP9m97PKPfXAhiZ6LCFuJ ib75lpo2vsVMyPVh67q2kLTClWZzLi1+6X13PCgUkpu2agSySVXfuuNZwwUDByd8Oa5W CN26Qrdu1TNBnksqIguxoITABx6JaNnqG6doG5zE9HzuVHN5NkYNqOUleIFN8Jv28LWZ 57aTqviS9+vQKtnp5s+AcjETZpI8iWvx7JnX6amc+ZpKlcUNBiWgQopQ9dMutycHgMLO Dgqh71Xauk1FiURbfgNTqD/Su8K0tEMYVlBaWRH9XSWWVK9yKZ1sC4Uxth3gXi6xQX/3 IJmQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5JWxZJZBiv5WsAlF+59wMUu0b8t7bhXepTuE5PDReSeggOKtlK 3F/J7U3TZigFXNSzRpSE5ZD/5g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMajSdUIGUzFXsLzKytUB9vEFJCzZLiNLnoQDpkBFOe7RIn9V4juXGCQ1lOZpci/ytQhqjIBpg== X-Received: by 10.80.167.193 with SMTP id i59mr24223094edc.173.1510767814551; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:43:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from PC016 (mail.ibeq.com. [212.100.42.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r8sm4598368edm.22.2017.11.15.09.43.32 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:43:33 -0800 (PST) From: To: References: <007c01d35e34$10a7f770$31f7e650$@gmail.com> ,<008301d35e35$637891c0$2a69b540$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Performance difference between servers Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:43:32 +0100 Message-ID: <005301d35e39$42131510$c6393f30$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01D35E41.A3DA8A50" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQNaLifc2PYzL3c8wJpjGYbbDmQX5QHVAdAjAqWc9rkCCWy5qJ/T70Ng Content-Language: de List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01D35E41.A3DA8A50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Trying as best as a can: #1 HP 8200 Elite microtower, i7-2600, 16GB RAM, 1 SSD 480 GB, 1 SSD 900 GB, Hyper-V 2012 R2 (not 2008 R2 as written in my original question) #2 Lenovo TS 150, E3-1245 V5, 40GB RAM, 2 SSD 850GB as RAID 1 (BIOS level), 2 HDDs 1TB as RAID 1 (BIOS level) #3 model unknown, E3-1270 V3, 32GB RAM, 2 SSD 480GB as RAID 1 (BIOS level) Server #1 is more a PC than a server. Server #1 runs in total 4 virtual guests. 8GB and 6 "cores" dedicated to the server running PostgreSQL and 3GB to other machines which are almost 100% idle. Server #2 has currently on the one guets running PostgreSQL with 16GB RAM and 6 "cores" dedicated. Server #3 runs 2 virtual guests. 12GB and 4 cores dedicated tot he guest runnning PostgreSQL. 4 GB and 3 cores decicated to another guest with is practically idle. Servers #2 and #3 have still plenty of free disk space while server #1 is using approx. 70% oft he disks. Server #1 has much older SSDs than #2. Not sure about #3. Von: Scott Whitney [mailto:scott@journyx.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November 2017 18:19 An: kpi6288@gmail.com Betreff: Re: [ADMIN] Performance difference between servers Can you post the hardware host specs for #1, #2 and #3? If those ARE the hardware specs (for example, you list SSDs), can you list the resources assigned to the guests? _____ From: kpi6288@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:15 AM To: Scott Whitney Subject: AW: [ADMIN] Performance difference between servers Yes, exactly: Three different (hardware) machines, each having a hyper-V host and the Windows Servers as Hyper-V guests. Von: Scott Whitney [mailto:scott@journyx.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November 2017 18:11 An: kpi6288@gmail.com ; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Betreff: Re: [ADMIN] Performance difference between servers Are you saying that each of these servers is a virtual HyperV machine running under a hardware host? _____ From: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org > on behalf of kpi6288@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:06 AM To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: [ADMIN] Performance difference between servers We have 3 different servers, one (the oldest) ist significantly faster at certain operations and I can't find out the reason: (table created in monospace font) Server Processor RAM CrystalDiskMark pgbench CREATE DATABASE OS #1 i7-2600 8GB 495 / 473 26.000 4.5 . 6 s W/ Server 2008 R2 on Hyper V Server 2008 #2 E3-1245 16GB 797 / 514 50.000 13 . 19 s W/ Server 2016 Std. on Hyper V Server 2016 #3 E3-1270 12GB 933 / 334 40.000 13 . 20 s W/ Server 2008 Essentials on Hyper V Server 2016 CrystalDiskMark: "Seq Q32T1" Pgbench: pgbench -i -s 200 -U postgres pgbench pgbench -c 40 -j 10 -T 150 -U postgres -S -P 5 pgbench CREATE DATABASE: create database test with template myTemplate All running PostgreSQL 9.6 x64 with similar configuration. All running as virtual machines, no other virtual machines creating any load. Using the same template database on all machines. Although the indicative numbers of pgbench and CrystalDiskMark show better values for server #2 and #3, server #1 creates a new database considerably faster. All servers have SSDs. Server #1 has two single SSDs (a system disk and a data disk). Servers #2 and #3 have only one logical disk for system and data, and this is two SSDs running as RAID 1. This may be slower but if it is, I would excpect this also to show up in the pgbench results. The reason behind this exercise is that a test application was also reported to be slower on server #2 and 3. Any idea how to track down the performance difference? Thank you Klaus Journyx, Inc. 7600 Burnet Road #300 Austin, TX 78757 www.journyx.com p 512.834.8888 f 512-834-8858 Do you receive our promotional emails? Click here or visit http://journyx.com/communication-preferences to unsubscribe. ------=_NextPart_000_0054_01D35E41.A3DA8A50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Trying as best as a can: =

 

#1  HP = 8200 Elite microtower, i7-2600, 16GB RAM, 1 SSD 480 GB, 1 SSD 900 GB, = Hyper-V 2012 R2 (not 2008 R2 as written in my original question) =

#2  = Lenovo TS 150, E3-1245 V5, 40GB RAM, 2 SSD 850GB as RAID 1 (BIOS level), = 2 HDDs 1TB as RAID 1 (BIOS level)

#3  model = unknown, E3-1270 V3, 32GB RAM, 2 SSD 480GB as RAID 1 (BIOS = level)

 

Server #1 is more a PC than a = server.

 

Server #1 = runs in total 4 virtual guests. 8GB and 6 „cores“ dedicated = to the server running PostgreSQL and 3GB to other machines which are = almost 100% idle.

Server #2 has currently on the one = guets running PostgreSQL with 16GB RAM and 6 „cores“ = dedicated.

Server #3 runs 2 virtual guests. = 12GB and 4 cores dedicated tot he guest runnning PostgreSQL. 4 GB and 3 = cores decicated to another guest with is practically idle. =

 

Servers #2 = and #3 have still plenty of free disk space while server #1 is using = approx. 70% oft he disks.

 

Server #1 = has much older SSDs than #2. Not sure about #3.

 

Von: Scott Whitney = [mailto:scott@journyx.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November = 2017 18:19
An: kpi6288@gmail.com
Betreff: Re: = [ADMIN] Performance difference between = servers

 

Can you post the hardware host = specs for #1, #2 and #3? If those ARE the hardware specs (for example, = you list SSDs), can you list the resources assigned to the = guests?

 

<= div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'>

From: kpi6288@gmail.com <kpi6288@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:15 AM
To: Scott = Whitney
Subject: AW: [ADMIN] Performance difference between = servers =

 

=

Yes, = exactly:

 

Three = different (hardware) machines, each having a hyper-V host and the = Windows Servers as Hyper-V guests.

 

 

<= div style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt = 0cm 0cm 0cm'>

Von: Scott Whitney [mailto:scott@journyx.com] =
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. November 2017 18:11
An: kpi6288@gmail.com; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org=
Betreff: Re: [ADMIN] Performance difference between = servers

 

Are you saying that each of these = servers is a virtual HyperV machine running under a hardware = host?

 

 

 

<= div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'>

From: pgsql-admin-owner@postgr= esql.org <pgsql-admin-owner@postgr= esql.org> on behalf of kpi6288@gmail.com <kpi6288@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 11:06 AM
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org=
Subject: [ADMIN] Performance difference between servers =

 

=

We have 3 different servers, one = (the oldest) ist significantly faster at certain operations and I = can’t find out the reason:

 

(table = created in monospace font)

 

Server  = Processor  RAM   CrystalDiskMark =   pgbench   CREATE DATABASE =   OS

  #= 1    i7-2600   8GB     495 = / 473   =      26.000      4.5 = … 6 s      W/ Server 2008 R2 on Hyper V = Server 2008

  &= nbsp;#2    E3-1245   16GB    797 = / 514    =     50.000      13 … = 19 s      W/ Server 2016 Std. on Hyper V Server = 2016

  =  #3    E3-1270   12GB  =   933 / 334        = 40.000      13 … 20 = s      W/ Server 2008 Essentials on Hyper V = Server 2016

 

CrystalDiskMark: „Seq = Q32T1“

Pgbench:

   pgbench -i -s = 200 -U postgres pgbench

   pgbench -c 40 -j 10 = -T 150 -U postgres -S -P 5 pgbench

CREATE = DATABASE:

   create database = test with template myTemplate

 

All = running PostgreSQL 9.6 x64 with similar configuration. All running as = virtual machines, no other virtual machines creating any load. Using the = same template database on all machines.

 

Although the indicative numbers = of pgbench and CrystalDiskMark show better values for server #2 and #3, = server #1 creates a new database considerably faster. =

All servers have SSDs. Server #1 = has two single SSDs (a system disk and a data disk). Servers #2 and #3 = have only one logical disk for system and data, and this is two SSDs = running as RAID 1. This may be slower but if it is, I would excpect this = also to show up in the pgbench results.

 

The = reason behind this exercise is that a test application was also reported = to be slower on server #2 and 3.

 

Any = idea how to track down the performance difference? =

 

Thank = you

Klaus

 

=

 

<= p class=3Dxmsonormal> 

=

Journyx, = Inc.

7600 Burnet Road #300
Austin, = TX 78757
www.journyx.com =

 

=

p = 512.834.8888 

f = 512-834-8858 

 

=

Do you receive our promotional = emails? Click here or visit = http://journyx.com/= communication-preferences to = unsubscribe.

------=_NextPart_000_0054_01D35E41.A3DA8A50--