pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com>
To: Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 02:08:29 +0400
Message-ID: <099BB618-4F80-4200-9564-4F06231D8D57@gmail.com> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <CAFwQ8rd1TTLh-BfMf-Uc2Vv_8GuP2uQqWAa6-FrtmJUhy3LVxQ@mail.gmail.com >
References: <CAFwQ8rcvw4mSoJ9q+ouONCeB9dg1T9gAUV5J27MpVZrehRHayQ@mail.gmail.com >
<4CB0E3B6-CF1E-4B54-9900-E8356744F0AA@gmail.com >
<CAFwQ8rd1TTLh-BfMf-Uc2Vv_8GuP2uQqWAa6-FrtmJUhy3LVxQ@mail.gmail.com >
On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:06 AM, Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com> wrote:
>
>> I tested both the RAID10 data disk and the RAID1 xlog disk with bonnie++. The xlog disks were almost identical in performance. The RAID10 pg-data disks looked like this:
>>
>> Old server:
>> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
>> Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
>> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
>> xenon 24064M 687 99 203098 26 81904 16 3889 96 403747 31 737.6 31
>> Latency 20512us 469ms 394ms 21402us 396ms 112ms
>> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
>> xenon -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
>> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
>> 16 15953 27 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
>> Latency 43291us 857us 519us 1588us 37us 178us
>> 1.96,1.96,xenon,1,1349726125,24064M,,687,99,203098,26,81904,16,3889,96,403747,31,737.6,31,16,,,,,15953,27,+++++,+++,+++++,++\
>> +,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,20512us,469ms,394ms,21402us,396ms,112ms,43291us,857us,519us,1588us,37us,178us
>>
>>
>> New server:
>> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random-
>> Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks--
>> Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP
>> zinc 24064M 862 99 212143 54 96008 14 4921 99 279239 17 752.0 23
>> Latency 15613us 598ms 597ms 2764us 398ms 215ms
>> Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create--------
>> zinc -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
>> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
>> 16 20380 26 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++
>> Latency 487us 627us 407us 972us 29us 262us
>> 1.96,1.96,zinc,1,1349722017,24064M,,862,99,212143,54,96008,14,4921,99,279239,17,752.0,23,16,,,,,20380,26,+++++,+++,+++++,+++\
>> ,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,15613us,598ms,597ms,2764us,398ms,215ms,487us,627us,407us,972us,29us,262us
>
> Sequential Input on the new one is 279MB/s, on the old 400MB/s.
>
>
> But why? What have I overlooked?
blockdev --setra 32000 ?
Also you benchmarked volume for pgdata? Can you provide benchmarks for wal volume?
>
> Thanks,
> Craig
>
view thread (47+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <099BB618-4F80-4200-9564-4F06231D8D57@gmail.com>
Permalink: ../099BB618-4F80-4200-9564-4F06231D8D57@gmail.com/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/099BB618-4F80-4200-9564-4F06231D8D57@gmail.com
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: itparanoia@gmail.com, cjames@emolecules.com
Subject: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance
In-Reply-To: <099BB618-4F80-4200-9564-4F06231D8D57@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox