Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCedI-0007VF-O9 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:17:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCedH-0003uT-Uj for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:17:24 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCedG-0003tA-2E for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:17:22 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.ep.renesys.com ([195.160.236.248]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UCedD-0001jD-BL for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:17:21 +0000 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.ep.renesys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501F4671F0 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from rouilj@localhost) by ops05.psm1.renesys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id r24NHHl2003567 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:17:17 GMT Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:17:17 +0000 From: John Rouillard To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: hardware upgrade, performance degrade? Message-ID: <20130304231717.GD7039@renesys.com> References: <5133AF87.9040704@agliodbs.com> <5133B3ED.7000906@verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 03:54:40PM -0700, Steven Crandell wrote: > Here's our hardware break down. > > The logvg on the new hardware is 30MB/s slower (170 MB/s vs 200 MB/s ) > than the logvg on the older hardware which was an immediately interesting > difference but we have yet to be able to create a test scenario that > successfully implicates this slower log speed in our problems. That is > something we are actively working on. > > > Old server hardware: > Manufacturer: Dell Inc. > Product Name: PowerEdge R810 > 4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7540 @ 2.00GHz > 32x16384 MB 1066 MHz DDR3 > Controller 0: PERC H700 - 2 disk RAID-1 278.88 GB rootvg > Controller 1: PERC H800 - 18 disk RAID-6 2,178.00 GB datavg, 4 > drive RAID-10 272.25 GB logvg, 2 hot spare > 2x 278.88 GB 15K SAS on controller 0 > 24x 136.13 GB 15K SAS on controller 1 > > New server hardware: > Manufacturer: Dell Inc. > Product Name: PowerEdge R820 > 4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4620 0 @ 2.20GHz > 32x32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3 > Controller 0: PERC H710P - 4 disk RAID-6 557.75 GB rootvg > Controller 1: PERC H810 - 20 disk RAID-60 4,462.00 GB datavg, 2 > disk RAID-1 278.88 GB logvg, 2 hot spare > 28x278.88 GB 15K SAS drives total. Hmm, you went from a striped (raid 1/0) log volume on the old hardware to a non-striped (raid 1) volume on the new hardware. That could explain the speed drop. Are the disks the same speed for the two systems? -- -- rouilj John Rouillard System Administrator Renesys Corporation 603-244-9084 (cell) 603-643-9300 x 111 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance