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 C42F39FA5BE for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:50:31 -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 55076-08 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:50:24 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from gw.proximity.com.au (147-68-185-210.static.techex.net.au [210.185.68.147]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53E89FA13E for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:50:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.proximity.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2362C1FDFE1 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from gw.proximity.com.au ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gw [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09407-09 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:50:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.132.14] (unknown [192.168.132.14]) by gw.proximity.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 524591FE1EA for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:50:16 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4491D61B.9040507@proximity.com.au> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 07:50:19 +1000 From: Tim Allen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050316) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: SAN performance mystery Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070007050506070004030707" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at proximity.com.au X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/327 X-Sequence-Number: 19684 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070007050506070004030707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We have a customer who are having performance problems. They have a large (36G+) postgres 8.1.3 database installed on an 8-way opteron with 8G RAM, attached to an EMC SAN via fibre-channel (I don't have details of the EMC SAN model, or the type of fibre-channel card at the moment). They're running RedHat ES3 (which means a 2.4.something Linux kernel). They are unhappy about their query performance. We've been doing various things to try to work out what we can do. One thing that has been apparent is that autovacuum has not been able to keep the database sufficiently tamed. A pg_dump/pg_restore cycle reduced the total database size from 81G to 36G. Performing the restore took about 23 hours. We tried restoring the pg_dump output to one of our machines, a dual-core pentium D with a single SATA disk, no raid, I forget how much RAM but definitely much less than 8G. The restore took five hours. So it would seem that our machine, which on paper should be far less impressive than the customer's box, does more than four times the I/O performance. To simplify greatly - single local SATA disk beats EMC SAN by factor of four. Is that expected performance, anyone? It doesn't sound right to me. Does anyone have any clues about what might be going on? Buggy kernel drivers? Buggy kernel, come to think of it? Does a SAN just not provide adequate performance for a large database? I'd be grateful for any clues anyone can offer, Tim --------------070007050506070004030707 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="tim.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="tim.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Tim Allen n:Allen;Tim email;internet:tim@proximity.com.au x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard --------------070007050506070004030707--