X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E00A9DCD5B for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:55:59 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 90026-06 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:56:01 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from campbell-lange.net (campbell-lange.net [217.147.82.41]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B29E9DCC2B for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:55:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from rory by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EkUgW-0003ml-Fm; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:56:20 +0000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:56:20 +0000 From: Rory Campbell-Lange To: Steve Poe Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Disk tests for a new database server Message-ID: <20051208225620.GA14485@campbell-lange.net> References: <20051208121259.GA29104@campbell-lange.net> <1134054391.10837.3.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1134054391.10837.3.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.333 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.333] X-Spam-Score: 0.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/255 X-Sequence-Number: 16076 Hi Steve On 08/12/05, Steve Poe (spoe@sfnet.cc) wrote: > Rory, > > While I don't have my specific stats with my from my tests with XFS and > bonnie for our company's db server, I do recall vividly that seq. output > did not increase dramatically until I had 8+ discs in a RAID10 > configuration on an LSI card. I was not using LVM. If I had less than 8 > discs, seq. output was about equal regardless of file system being uses > (EXT3,JFS,or XFS). Thanks for the information. I certainly had not appreciated this fact. Regards, Rory > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 12:12 +0000, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote: > > We are testing disk I/O on our new server (referred to in my recent > > questions about LVM and XFS on this list) and have run bonnie++ on the > > xfs partition destined for postgres; results noted below. > > > > I haven't been able to find many benchmarks showing desirable IO stats. > > As far as I can tell the sequential input (around 110000K/sec) looks > > good while the sequential output (around 50000K/sec) looks fairly > > average. > > > > Advice and comments gratefully received. > > Suggested Parameters for running pg_bench would be great! > > > > Thanks, > > Rory ... > > 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 > > mas 13000M 52655 99 52951 10 32246 7 41441 72 113438 12 590.0 0 > > mas 13000M 49306 83 51967 9 32269 7 42442 70 115427 12 590.5 1 > > mas 13000M 53449 89 51982 10 32625 7 42819 71 111829 11 638.3 0 > > mas 13000M 51818 88 51639 9 33127 7 42377 70 108585 11 556.5 0 ... > > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > > files:max:min /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > > mas 16 7970 36 +++++ +++ 7534 34 7918 36 +++++ +++ 4482 22 > > mas 16 7945 33 +++++ +++ 7483 30 7918 42 +++++ +++ 4438 20 > > mas 16 8481 48 +++++ +++ 7468 31 7870 39 +++++ +++ 4385 23 > > mas 16 7915 36 +++++ +++ 7498 33 7930 41 +++++ +++ 4619 23 > > mas 16 8553 35 +++++ +++ 8312 38 8613 37 +++++ +++ 4513 24 > > mas 16 8498 40 +++++ +++ 8215 33 8570 43 +++++ +++ 4858 26