pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedPerformance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
24+ messages / 14 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
@ 2006-07-28 06:37 Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk @ 2006-07-28 06:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 26, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
To: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
Hello!
I have upgraded my server to an HP Proliant DL585. It got two Processor
motherboards, each holding an AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 4GIG of memory.
I got 4 150GIG SCSI disks in a Smart Array 5i 1+0 RAID.
I'v been using Postgres for a few years, and the reason for this major
hardware upgrade is to boost my performance. I have created a small web
application that pulls huge amounts of data from my database.
The database consists of basically one table, but it's big. It got 10
columns and a few indexes on the 3-4 most used fields (based on my queries
of course). My queries use a few aggregated functions, such as sum and
count, which makes the data moving process time-consuming.
Now, on my older server (2gig memory and probabably some 2ghz cpu) my
queries took quite a lot of time (30sec - several minutes). Now, with a much
better hardware platform, I was hoping I could juice the process!
As I have understood, there is alot of tuning using both postgres.conf and
analyzing queries to make the values of postgres.conf fit my needs, system
and hardware. This is where I need some help. I have looked into
postgres.conf , and seen the tunings. But I'm still not sure what I should
put into those variables (in postgres.conf) with my hardware.
Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
- Kjell Tore
--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 06:54 Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-28 06:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Kjell,
> I got 4 150GIG SCSI disks in a Smart Array 5i 1+0 RAID.
The Smart Array 5i is a terrible performer on Linux. I would be
surprised if you exceed the performance of a single hard drive with this
controller when doing I/O from disk. Since your database working set is
larger than memory on the machine, I would recommend you use a simple
non-RAID U320 SCSI controller, like those from LSI Logic (which HP
resells) and implement Linux software RAID. You should see a nearly 10x
increase in performance as compared to the SmartArray 5i.
If you have a good relationship with HP, please ask them for some
documentation of RAID performance on Linux with the SmartArray 5i. I
predict they will tell you what they've told me and others: "the 5i is
only useful for booting the OS". Alternately they could say: "we have
world record performance with our RAID controllers", in which case you
should ask them if that was with the 5i on Linux or whether it was the
6-series on Windows.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 08:46 Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Carneholm @ 2006-07-28 08:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
I would be interested in what numbers you would get out of bonnie++
(http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++) and BenchmarkSQL
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/benchmarksql) on that hardware, for
comparison with our DL385 (2xOpteron 280, 16Gb ram) and MSA1500. If you
need help building benchmarksql, I can assist you with that.
Actually, I would be interested if everyone who's reading this that has
a similar machine (2 cpu, dual core opteron) with different storage
systems could send me their bonnie + benchmarksql results!
/Mikael
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Luke
Lonergan
Sent: den 28 juli 2006 08:55
To: Kjell Tore Fossbakk; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
Kjell,
> I got 4 150GIG SCSI disks in a Smart Array 5i 1+0 RAID.
The Smart Array 5i is a terrible performer on Linux. I would be
surprised if you exceed the performance of a single hard drive with this
controller when doing I/O from disk. Since your database working set is
larger than memory on the machine, I would recommend you use a simple
non-RAID U320 SCSI controller, like those from LSI Logic (which HP
resells) and implement Linux software RAID. You should see a nearly 10x
increase in performance as compared to the SmartArray 5i.
If you have a good relationship with HP, please ask them for some
documentation of RAID performance on Linux with the SmartArray 5i. I
predict they will tell you what they've told me and others: "the 5i is
only useful for booting the OS". Alternately they could say: "we have
world record performance with our RAID controllers", in which case you
should ask them if that was with the 5i on Linux or whether it was the
6-series on Windows.
- Luke
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 08:53 Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-28 08:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Mikael,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:47 AM
>
> I would be interested in what numbers you would get out of bonnie++
> (http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++) and BenchmarkSQL
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/benchmarksql) on that
> hardware, for comparison with our DL385 (2xOpteron 280, 16Gb
> ram) and MSA1500. If you need help building benchmarksql, I
> can assist you with that.
Me too. Can you post your MSA1500 results?
The MSA500/1000 come with two SmartArray 6402 controllers, but the RAID
is done inside the MSA500/1000 chassis from what I understand. I have
heard that the performance on Linux is pretty good, but I've not seen
the benchmarks to prove it. Bonnie++ is fine - should tell us what we
need to know.
Also, I am *very* interested in seeing what the P600 SAS controller
results look like when coupled with an MSA50 SAS chassis with 10 disks.
This is the new SAS controller that can be configured on the DL385 and
585.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 09:16 Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-28 09:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Mikael,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
>
> My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
>
Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
disappointing. The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.
Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
at 500/second.
By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.
On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):
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
thumperdw-i-1 32G 120453 99 467814 98 290391 58 109371 99 993344
94 1801 4
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850 99 +++++ +++
+++++ +++
Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
rates together):
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
thumperdw-i-1 32G 111441 95 212536 54 171798 51 106184 98 719472
88 1233 2
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 26085 90 +++++ +++ 5700 98 21448 97 +++++ +++
4381 97
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
thumperdw-i-1 32G 116355 99 212509 54 171647 50 106112 98 715030
87 1274 3
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 26082 99 +++++ +++ 5588 98 21399 88 +++++ +++
4272 97
So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
per character sequential read.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 09:55 Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Carneholm @ 2006-07-28 09:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Luke,
Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results
from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's
bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual
core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems
(EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that
machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It
would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to
benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout.
/Mikael
-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:LLonergan@greenplum.com]
Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17
To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk;
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
Mikael,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
>
> My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
>
Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
disappointing. The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.
Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
at 500/second.
By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.
On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):
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
thumperdw-i-1 32G 120453 99 467814 98 290391 58 109371 99 993344
94 1801 4
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850 99 +++++ +++
+++++ +++
Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
rates together):
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
thumperdw-i-1 32G 111441 95 212536 54 171798 51 106184 98 719472
88 1233 2
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 26085 90 +++++ +++ 5700 98 21448 97 +++++ +++
4381 97
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
thumperdw-i-1 32G 116355 99 212509 54 171647 50 106112 98 715030
87 1274 3
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 26082 99 +++++ +++ 5588 98 21399 88 +++++ +++
4272 97
So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
per character sequential read.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 10:38 Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
parent: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk @ 2006-07-28 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@wirelesscar.com>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; pgsql-performance
Hello.
Unfortunately, I'm leaving for my vacation now, gone 3 weeks. When I'm back
I'll run benchmarksql and bonnie++ and give the results here.
The spec I will be using:
Prolite DL585
2 x AMD/Opteron 64-bit 2,6GHZ
8G DDR PC3200
4 x 150G SCSI in SmartArray 5i
Running Gentoo 2006.0 AMD_64 Hardened kernel
Then I will remove the SmartArray 5i, and use a simple nonRAID SCSI
controller and implement Linux software RAID, and re-run the tests.
I'll give signal in 3 weeks
- Kjell Tore.
On 7/28/06, Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@wirelesscar.com> wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
> Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results
> from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's
> bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual
> core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems
> (EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that
> machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It
> would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to
> benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout.
>
> /Mikael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:LLonergan@greenplum.com]
> Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17
> To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk;
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
>
> Mikael,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
> >
> > My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
> >
>
> Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
> disappointing. The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
> are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
> 80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.
>
> Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
> at 500/second.
>
> By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
> 16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.
>
> On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
> SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):
>
> 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
> thumperdw-i-1 32G 120453 99 467814 98 290391 58 109371 99 993344
> 94 1801 4
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850 99 +++++ +++
> +++++ +++
>
> Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
> speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
> rates together):
>
> 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
> thumperdw-i-1 32G 111441 95 212536 54 171798 51 106184 98 719472
> 88 1233 2
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 26085 90 +++++ +++ 5700 98 21448 97 +++++ +++
> 4381 97
>
> 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
> thumperdw-i-1 32G 116355 99 212509 54 171647 50 106112 98 715030
> 87 1274 3
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 26082 99 +++++ +++ 5588 98 21399 88 +++++ +++
> 4272 97
>
> So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
> per character sequential read.
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
@ 2006-07-28 12:51 Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>
parent: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Claus Guttesen @ 2006-07-28 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
> As I have understood, there is alot of tuning using both postgres.conf and
> analyzing queries to make the values of postgres.conf fit my needs, system
> and hardware. This is where I need some help. I have looked into
> postgres.conf , and seen the tunings. But I'm still not sure what I should
> put into those variables (in postgres.conf) with my hardware.
>
> Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
What OS is it running and what version is postgresql?
regards
Claus
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 14:17 Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>
parent: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Leigh Dyer @ 2006-07-28 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance; Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com
Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> I would be interested in what numbers you would get out of bonnie++
> (http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++) and BenchmarkSQL
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/benchmarksql) on that hardware, for
> comparison with our DL385 (2xOpteron 280, 16Gb ram) and MSA1500. If you
> need help building benchmarksql, I can assist you with that.
>
> Actually, I would be interested if everyone who's reading this that has
> a similar machine (2 cpu, dual core opteron) with different storage
> systems could send me their bonnie + benchmarksql results!
>
Here's the bonnie++ results from our Sun Fire V40z (2x Opteron 250, 4GB
RAM) with 6 15krpm 73GB drives connected to an LSI MegaRAID 320-2X
controller with 512MB cache. It's running Linux, and I'm using what
seems to be a fairly typical 6-drive setup: 2 drives in RAID-1 for OS
and WAL, and 4 drives in RAID-10 for data. This is from the 4-drive
RAID-10 array:
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
gaz 8G 56692 88 73061 12 33048 6 44994 64 132571 14
474.0 0
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 19448 88 +++++ +++ 18611 72 19952 90 +++++ +++
15167 65
This system is actually in production currently, and while it's a rather
quiet time at the moment, it still wasn't _entirely_ inactive when those
numbers were run, so the real performance is probably a little higher.
I'll see if I can run some BenchmarkSQL numbers as well.
Thanks
Leigh
> /Mikael
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Luke
> Lonergan
> Sent: den 28 juli 2006 08:55
> To: Kjell Tore Fossbakk; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
>
> Kjell,
>
>> I got 4 150GIG SCSI disks in a Smart Array 5i 1+0 RAID.
>
> The Smart Array 5i is a terrible performer on Linux. I would be
> surprised if you exceed the performance of a single hard drive with this
> controller when doing I/O from disk. Since your database working set is
> larger than memory on the machine, I would recommend you use a simple
> non-RAID U320 SCSI controller, like those from LSI Logic (which HP
> resells) and implement Linux software RAID. You should see a nearly 10x
> increase in performance as compared to the SmartArray 5i.
>
> If you have a good relationship with HP, please ask them for some
> documentation of RAID performance on Linux with the SmartArray 5i. I
> predict they will tell you what they've told me and others: "the 5i is
> only useful for booting the OS". Alternately they could say: "we have
> world record performance with our RAID controllers", in which case you
> should ask them if that was with the 5i on Linux or whether it was the
> 6-series on Windows.
>
> - Luke
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
> ---------------------------(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
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 17:31 Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>
parent: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Trout @ 2006-07-28 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
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/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 18:01 Mark Lewis <mark.lewis@mir3.com>
parent: Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Mark Lewis @ 2006-07-28 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-28 19:22 Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
parent: Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-28 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>; +Cc: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Jeff,
On 7/28/06 10:31 AM, "Jeff Trout" <threshar@torgo.978.org> wrote:
> I'm still not sure about that software 10 read number. something is
> not right there...
It's very consistent with what we've seen before - the hardware RAID
controller doesn't do JBOD with SCSI command queuing like a simple SCSI
controller would do. The Smart Array 6402 makes a very bad SCSI controller
for software RAID.
The hardware results look very good - seems like the 2.6.17 linux kernel has
a drastically improved CCISS driver as compared to what I've previously
seen.
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-29 05:57 Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net>
parent: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Charles Sprickman @ 2006-07-29 05:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; +Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> Luke,
>
> Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results
> from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's
> bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual
> core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems
> (EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that
> machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It
> would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to
> benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout.
FWIW, once our vendor gets all the pieces (having some issues with
figuring out which multilane sata cables to get), I'll have a dual-core
opteron box with a 3Ware 9500SX-12MI and 8 drives. I need to benchmark to
compare this to our xeon/adaptec/scsi build we've been using.
I've also got a 1U with a 9500SX-4 and 4 drives. I like how the 3Ware
card scales there - started with 2 drives and got "drive speed" mirroring.
Added two more and most of the bonnie numbers doubled. This is not what
I'm used to with the Adaptec SCSI junk.
These SATA RAID controllers 3Ware is making seem to be leaps and bounds
beyond what the "old guard" is churning out (at much higher prices).
Charles
> /Mikael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:LLonergan@greenplum.com]
> Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17
> To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk;
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
>
> Mikael,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
>>
>> My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
>>
>
> Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
> disappointing. The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
> are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
> 80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.
>
> Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
> at 500/second.
>
> By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
> 16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.
>
> On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
> SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):
>
> 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
> thumperdw-i-1 32G 120453 99 467814 98 290391 58 109371 99 993344
> 94 1801 4
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850 99 +++++ +++
> +++++ +++
>
> Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
> speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
> rates together):
>
> 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
> thumperdw-i-1 32G 111441 95 212536 54 171798 51 106184 98 719472
> 88 1233 2
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 26085 90 +++++ +++ 5700 98 21448 97 +++++ +++
> 4381 97
>
> 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
> thumperdw-i-1 32G 116355 99 212509 54 171647 50 106112 98 715030
> 87 1274 3
> ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
> -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
> files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
> 16 26082 99 +++++ +++ 5588 98 21399 88 +++++ +++
> 4272 97
>
> So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
> per character sequential read.
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-29 06:06 Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-29 06:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net>; Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>; +Cc: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Charles,
> FWIW, once our vendor gets all the pieces (having some issues
> with figuring out which multilane sata cables to get), I'll
> have a dual-core opteron box with a 3Ware 9500SX-12MI and 8
> drives. I need to benchmark to compare this to our
> xeon/adaptec/scsi build we've been using.
Cool! You mean the 9550SX, not the 9500, right?
A trick on the 9550SX with Linux is to set the max readahead to 512KB
and no larger when using RAID10. If you use RAID5, set it to 16MB.
Here is how you set it (put in /etc/rc.d/rc.local) for 512KB on
/dev/sda:
/sbin/blockdev --setra 512 /dev/sda
I was able to go from 310MB/s on 8 drives to 475MB/s that way (using
XFS).
Also, you need to stay away from Linux Volume Manager (lvm and lvm2),
they add a lot of overhead (!!?) to the block access. It took me a long
time to figure that out!
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-29 18:09 Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
parent: Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Denis Lussier @ 2006-07-29 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>; +Cc: pgsql-performance; Mikael.Carneholm@wirelesscar.com
> systems could send me their bonnie + benchmarksql results!
I am one of the authors of BenchmarkSQL, it is similar to a DBT2. But, its
very easy to use (&/or abuse). It's a multithreaded Java Swing client that
can run the exact same benchmark (uses JDBC prepared statements) against
Postgres/EnterpriseDB/Bizgres, MySQueeL, Horacle, Microsloth, etc, etc. You
can find BenchmarkSQL on pgFoundry and SourceForge.
As expected, Postgres is good on this benchmark and is getting better all
the time.
If you run an EnterpriseDB install right out of the box versus a PG install
right out of the box you'll notice that EnterpriseDB outperforms PG by
better than 2x. This does NOT mean that EnterpriseDB is 3x faster than
Postgres... EnterpriseDB is the same speed as Postgres. We do something
we call "Dynatune" at db startup time. The algorithm is pretty simple in
our current GA version and really only considers the amount of RAM, SHARED
Memory, and machine usage pattern. Manual tuning is required to really
optimize performance....
For great insight into the basics of quickly tuning PostgreSQL for a
reasonable starting point, check out the great instructions offered by Josh
Berkus and Joe Conway at http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/.
The moral of this unreasonably verbose email is that you shouldn't abuse
BenchmarkSQL and measure runs without making sure that, at least,
quick/simple best practices have been applied to tuning the db's you are
choosing to test.
--Denis Lussier
CTO
http://www.enterprisedb.com
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-29 18:39 Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
parent: Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-29 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>; Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>; +Cc: pgsql-performance; Mikael.Carneholm@wirelesscar.com
Denis,
On 7/29/06 11:09 AM, "Denis Lussier" <denisl@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> We do something we call "Dynatune" at db startup time.
Sounds great - where do we download it?
- Luke
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-29 20:00 Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
parent: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Denis Lussier @ 2006-07-29 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>; pgsql-performance; Mikael.Carneholm@wirelesscar.com
Not sure that EnterpriseDB's Dynatune is the general purpose answer that the
PG community has been searching to find. Actually, I think it could be,
but... the community process will decide.
We are presently planning to create a site that will be called
http://gforge.enterprisedb.com that will be similar in spirit to BizGres.
By this I mean that we will be open sourcing many key small "improvements"
(in the eye of the beholder) for PG that will potentially make it into PG
(likely in some modified format) depending on the reactions and desires of
the general Postgres community.
In case anyone is wondering... NO, EnterpriseDB won't be open sourcing the
legacy Horacle stuff we've added to our product (at least not yet). This
stuff is distributed under our Commercial Open Source license (similar to
SugarCRM's). Our Commercial Open Source license simply means that if you
buy a Platinum Subscription to our product, then you can keep the source
code under your pillow and use it internally at your company however you see
fit.
--Denis Lussier
CTO
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 7/29/06, Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
> On 7/29/06 11:09 AM, "Denis Lussier" <denisl@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > We do something we call "Dynatune" at db startup time.
>
> Sounds great - where do we download it?
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
@ 2006-07-30 19:01 Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
parent: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk @ 2006-07-30 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Hello.
OS: Gentoo 2006.0 with gentoo's hardened kernel
Version: I haven't checked. Im guessing 8.0.8 (latest stable on all systems)
or 8.1.4 which is the latest package.
I'm still gonna try to run with smart array 5i. How can i find out that my
performance with that is crappy? Without ripping down my systems, and using
software raid?
Kjell Tore
On 7/28/06, Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I have understood, there is alot of tuning using both postgres.confand
> > analyzing queries to make the values of postgres.conf fit my needs,
> system
> > and hardware. This is where I need some help. I have looked into
> > postgres.conf , and seen the tunings. But I'm still not sure what I
> should
> > put into those variables (in postgres.conf) with my hardware.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
>
> What OS is it running and what version is postgresql?
>
> regards
> Claus
>
--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-07-30 19:14 Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Luke Lonergan @ 2006-07-30 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>; Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Run bonnie++ version 1.03 and report results here.
- Luke
Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk [mailto:kjelltore@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 03:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Claus Guttesen
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
Hello.
OS: Gentoo 2006.0 with gentoo's hardened kernel
Version: I haven't checked. Im guessing 8.0.8 (latest stable on all systems)
or 8.1.4 which is the latest package.
I'm still gonna try to run with smart array 5i. How can i find out that my
performance with that is crappy? Without ripping down my systems, and using
software raid?
Kjell Tore
On 7/28/06, Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I have understood, there is alot of tuning using both postgres.confand
> > analyzing queries to make the values of postgres.conf fit my needs,
> system
> > and hardware. This is where I need some help. I have looked into
> > postgres.conf , and seen the tunings. But I'm still not sure what I
> should
> > put into those variables (in postgres.conf) with my hardware.
> >
> > Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
>
> What OS is it running and what version is postgresql?
>
> regards
> Claus
>
--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
@ 2006-07-30 19:18 Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
parent: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk @ 2006-07-30 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>; +Cc: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>; pgsql-performance
Okey!
The thing is, im on vacation. So ill report in about 3 weeks time.. Sry
guys.. :-)
Kjell Tore
On 7/30/06, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
>
> Run bonnie++ version 1.03 and report results here.
>
>
> - Luke
>
> Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kjell Tore Fossbakk [mailto:kjelltore@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 03:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Claus Guttesen
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and
> 8gig DDR PC3200
>
> Hello.
>
> OS: Gentoo 2006.0 with gentoo's hardened kernel
> Version: I haven't checked. Im guessing 8.0.8 (latest stable on all
> systems)
> or 8.1.4 which is the latest package.
>
> I'm still gonna try to run with smart array 5i. How can i find out that my
> performance with that is crappy? Without ripping down my systems, and
> using
> software raid?
>
> Kjell Tore
>
> On 7/28/06, Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As I have understood, there is alot of tuning using both
> postgres.confand
> > > analyzing queries to make the values of postgres.conf fit my needs,
> > system
> > > and hardware. This is where I need some help. I have looked into
> > > postgres.conf , and seen the tunings. But I'm still not sure what I
> > should
> > > put into those variables (in postgres.conf) with my hardware.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
> >
> > What OS is it running and what version is postgresql?
> >
> > regards
> > Claus
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
>
>
--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-08-07 12:07 Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
parent: Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Markus Schaber @ 2006-08-07 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
Hi, Charles,
Charles Sprickman wrote:
> I've also got a 1U with a 9500SX-4 and 4 drives. I like how the 3Ware
> card scales there - started with 2 drives and got "drive speed"
> mirroring. Added two more and most of the bonnie numbers doubled. This
> is not what I'm used to with the Adaptec SCSI junk.
Well, for sequential reading, you should be able to get double drive
speed on a 2-disk mirror with a good controller, as it can balance the
reads among the drives.
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-08-07 20:02 Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
parent: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Alex Turner @ 2006-08-07 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Although I for one have yet to see a controller that actualy does this (I
believe software RAID on linux doesn't either).
Alex.
On 8/7/06, Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Charles,
>
> Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
> > I've also got a 1U with a 9500SX-4 and 4 drives. I like how the 3Ware
> > card scales there - started with 2 drives and got "drive speed"
> > mirroring. Added two more and most of the bonnie numbers doubled. This
> > is not what I'm used to with the Adaptec SCSI junk.
>
> Well, for sequential reading, you should be able to get double drive
> speed on a 2-disk mirror with a good controller, as it can balance the
> reads among the drives.
>
> Markus
> --
> Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG
> Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS
>
> Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org
> www.nosoftwarepatents.org
>
> ---------------------------(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
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-08-07 20:20 Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
parent: Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Steinar H. Gunderson @ 2006-08-07 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:02:52PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> Although I for one have yet to see a controller that actualy does this (I
> believe software RAID on linux doesn't either).
Linux' software RAID does. See earlier threads for demonstrations.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
@ 2006-08-09 21:09 Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
parent: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jim C. Nasby @ 2006-08-09 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:20:02PM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 04:02:52PM -0400, Alex Turner wrote:
> > Although I for one have yet to see a controller that actualy does this (I
> > believe software RAID on linux doesn't either).
>
> Linux' software RAID does. See earlier threads for demonstrations.
The real question: will it balance within a single thread?
Cheaper raid setups will balance individual requests between devices,
but good ones should be able to service a single request from both
devices (assuming it's reading more than whatever the stripe size is).
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 24+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-09 21:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-28 06:37 Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200 Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
2006-07-28 12:51 ` Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>
2006-07-30 19:01 ` Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
2006-07-28 06:54 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-28 08:46 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
2006-07-28 14:17 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Leigh Dyer <leigh@eclinic.com.au>
2006-07-29 18:09 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
2006-07-29 18:39 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-29 20:00 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Denis Lussier <denisl@enterprisedb.com>
2006-07-28 08:53 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-28 09:16 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-28 17:31 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Jeff Trout <threshar@torgo.978.org>
2006-07-28 18:01 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Mark Lewis <mark.lewis@mir3.com>
2006-07-28 19:22 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-28 09:55 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Mikael Carneholm <Mikael.Carneholm@WirelessCar.com>
2006-07-28 10:38 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
2006-07-29 05:57 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Charles Sprickman <spork@bway.net>
2006-08-07 12:07 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Markus Schaber <schabi@logix-tt.com>
2006-08-07 20:02 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com>
2006-08-07 20:20 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
2006-08-09 21:09 ` Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
2006-07-29 06:06 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-30 19:14 Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig Luke Lonergan <LLonergan@greenplum.com>
2006-07-30 19:18 ` Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore@gmail.com>
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