From: Mark Lewis <mark.lewis@mir3.com>
To: Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
Cc: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:01:54 -0700
Message-ID: <1154109714.1634.609.camel@archimedes> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7A073C1C-BB04-42C7-A7B9-D25A18DB27D0@torgo.978.org>
References: <3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D03E6CA59@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com>
<7A073C1C-BB04-42C7-A7B9-D25A18DB27D0@torgo.978.org>
This isn't all that surprising. The main weaknesses of RAID-5 are poor
write performance and stupid hardware controllers that make the write
performance even worse than it needs to be. Your numbers bear that out.
Reads off RAID-5 are usually pretty good.
Your 'dd' test is going to be a little misleading though. Most DB
access isn't usually purely sequential; while it's easy to see why HW
RAID-5 might outperform HW-RAID-10 in large sequential reads (the RAID
controller would need to be smarter than most to make RAID-10 as fast as
RAID-5), I would expect that HW RAID-5 and RAID-10 random reads would be
about equal or else maybe give a slight edge to RAID-10.
-- Mark Lewis
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:31 -0400, Jeff Trout wrote:
> I too have a DL385 with a single DC Opteron 270.
> It claims to have a smart array 6i controller and over the last
> couple of days I've been runnign some tests on it, which have been
> yielding some suprising results.
>
> I've got 6 10k U320 disks in it. 2 are in a mirror set. We'll not
> pay any attention to them.
> The remaining 4 disks I've been toying with to see what config works
> best, using hardware raid and software raid.
>
> system info:
> dl dl385 - 1 opteron 270 - 5GB ram - smart array 6i
> cciss0: HP Smart Array 6i Controller
> Firmware Version: 2.58
> Linux db03 2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 #1 SMP Tue Jul 11 22:53:56 EDT 2006
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> using xfs
>
> Each drive can sustain 80MB/sec read (dd, straight off device)
>
> So here are the results I have so far. (averaged)
>
>
> hardware raid 5:
> dd - write 20GB file - 48MB/sec
> dd - read 20GB file - 247MB/sec
> [ didn't do a bonnie run on this yet ]
> pretty terrible write performance. good read.
>
> hardware raid 10
> dd - write 20GB - 104MB/sec
> dd - read 20GB - 196MB/sec
> bonnie++
> Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> -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
> db03 9592M 45830 97 129501 31 62981 14 48524 99 185818
> 19 949.0 1
>
> software raid 5
> dd - write 20gb - 85MB/sec
> dd - read 20gb - 135MB/sec
>
> I was very suprised at those results. I was sort of expecting it to
> smoke the hardware. I repeated the test many times, and kept getting
> these numbers.
>
> bonnie++:
> Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> -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
> db03 9592M 44110 97 81481 23 34604 10 44495 95 157063
> 28 919.3 1
>
> software 10:
> dd - write - 20GB - 108MB/sec
> dd - read - 20GB - 86MB/sec(!!!! WTF? - this is repeatable!!)
> bonnie++
> Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
> -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
> db03 9592M 44539 98 105444 20 34127 8 39830 83 100374
> 10 1072 1
>
>
> so I'm going to be going with hw r5, which went against what I
> thought going in - read perf is more important for my usage than write.
>
> I'm still not sure about that software 10 read number. something is
> not right there...
>
> --
> Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>
> http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/
> http://www.stuarthamm.net/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match
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: mark.lewis@mir3.com, threshar@torgo.978.org, LLonergan@greenplum.com, Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com, kjelltore@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
In-Reply-To: <1154109714.1634.609.camel@archimedes>
* 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