Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C743B5D91F for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 10:17:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83787-07 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 13:17:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mailhub1.renesys.com (mailhub1.ep.renesys.com [195.160.236.248]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD592B5D800 for ; Mon, 16 May 2011 10:17:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ops05.psm1.renesys.com (ops05.psm1.renesys.com [10.200.1.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailhub1.renesys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804BB671A4; Mon, 16 May 2011 13:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from rouilj@localhost) by ops05.psm1.renesys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id p4GDHUvw015982; Mon, 16 May 2011 13:17:30 GMT Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 13:17:30 +0000 From: John Rouillard To: "ktm@rice.edu" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Using pgiosim realistically Message-ID: <20110516131730.GA27218@renesys.com> References: <20110513210941.GX27218@renesys.com> <20110514170702.GC32389@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110514170702.GC32389@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201105/238 X-Sequence-Number: 43747 On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:07:02PM -0500, ktm@rice.edu wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:09:41PM +0000, John Rouillard wrote: > > I am adding pgiosim to our testing for new database hardware and I am > > seeing something I don't quite get and I think it's because I am using > > pgiosim incorrectly. > > > > Specs: > > > > OS: centos 5.5 kernel: 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 > > memory: 96GB > > cpu: 2x Intel(R) Xeon(R) X5690 @ 3.47GHz (6 core, ht enabled) > > disks: WD2003FYYS RE4 > > raid: lsi - 9260-4i with 8 disks in raid 10 configuration > > 1MB stripe size > > raid cache enabled w/ bbu > > disk caches disabled > > filesystem: ext3 created with -E stride=256 > > > > I am seeing really poor (70) iops with pgiosim. According to: > > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2tb-hdd-7200,2430-8.html in the > > database benchmark they are seeing ~170 iops on a single disk for > > these drives. I would expect an 8 disk raid 10 should get better then > > 3x the single disk rate (assuming the data is randomly distributed). > Those drives are 7200 rpm drives which would give you a maximum write > rate of 120/sec at best with the cache disabled. I actually think your > 70/sec is closer to reality and what you should anticipate in real use. > I do not see how they could make 170/sec. Did they strap a jet engine to > the drive. :) Hmm, I stated the disk cache was disabled. I should have said the disk write cache, but it's possible the readhead cache is disabled as well (not quite sure how to tell on the lsi cards). Also there isn't a lot of detail in what the database test mix is and I haven't tried researching the site to see if the spec the exact test. If it included a lot of writes and they were being handled by a cache then that could explain it. However, in my case I have an 8 disk raid 10 with a read only load (in this testing configuration). Shouldn't I expect more iops than a single disk can provide? Maybe pgiosim is hitting some other boundary than just i/o? Also it turns out that pgiosim can only handle 64 files. I haven't checked to see if this is a compile time changable item or not. -- -- rouilj John Rouillard System Administrator Renesys Corporation 603-244-9084 (cell) 603-643-9300 x 111