X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF789FB3F2 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:50:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89097-01-7 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:50:14 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mir3-fs.mir3.com (mail.mir3.com [65.208.188.100]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353DC9FAE4E for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:47:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: mir3-fs.mir3.com 172.16.1.11 from 172.16.2.68 172.16.2.68 via HTTP with MS-WebStorage 6.0.6249 Received: from archimedes.mirlogic.com by mir3-fs.mir3.com; 21 Aug 2006 14:47:25 -0700 Subject: Re: How to get higher tps From: Mark Lewis To: Marty Jia Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <0B9A8C89DCC3AB488A78A4DE0FECDA90019E30D4@SITE3MAIL04.jeeves.ask.info> References: <0B9A8C89DCC3AB488A78A4DE0FECDA90019E30D4@SITE3MAIL04.jeeves.ask.info> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: MIR3, Inc. Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:47:25 -0700 Message-Id: <1156196845.9657.82.camel@archimedes> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-27) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.321 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/322 X-Sequence-Number: 20507 Not much we can do unless you give us more info about how you're testing (pgbench setup), and what you've done with the parameters you listed below. It would also be useful if you told us more about your drive array than just "3Par". We need to know the RAID level, number/speed of disks, whether it's got a battery-backed write cache that's turned on, things like this. Like Jeff just said, it's likely that you're waiting for rotational latency, which would limit your maximum tps for sequential jobs based on the number of disks in your array. For example, a 2-disk array of 10k RPM disks is going to max out somewhere around 333 tps. (2*10000/60). -- Mark Lewis On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:45 -0400, Marty Jia wrote: > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following > parameters > > shared_buffers > fsync > max_fsm_pages > max_connections > shared_buffers > work_mem > max_fsm_pages > effective_cache_size > random_page_cost > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench > > Here is our hardware > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz > 6GB RAM > Linux 2.4 kernel > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > > We don't have i/o bottle neck. > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps > over 1500, it is hard to believe. > > Thanks > > Marty > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster