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 BCA479FA5CE for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:48:29 -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 38037-07 for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:48:15 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cronos.madness.at (madness.at [217.196.146.217]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599309F9CAA for ; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:48:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from gateway.conova.com ([213.153.32.181] helo=[192.168.1.61]) by cronos.madness.at with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Fr93h-000Kqp-Aw; Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:48:11 +0200 Message-ID: <44926230.6060304@kaltenbrunner.cc> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 09:48:00 +0200 From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Allen CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SAN performance mystery References: <4491D61B.9040507@proximity.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4491D61B.9040507@proximity.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/341 X-Sequence-Number: 19698 Tim Allen wrote: > 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. Hi Tim! to give you some comparision - we have a similiar sized database here (~38GB after a fresh restore and ~76GB after some months into production). the server is a 4 core Opteron @2,4Ghz with 16GB RAM, connected via 2 QLogic 2Gbit HBA's to the SAN (IBM DS4300 Turbo). It took us quite a while to get this combination up to speed but a full dump&restore cycle (via a pg_dump | psql pipe over the net) now takes only about an hour. 23 hours or even 5 hours sounds really excessive - I'm wondering about some basic issues with the SAN. If you are using any kind of multipathing (most likely the one in the QLA-drivers) I would at first assume that you are playing ping-pong between the controllers (ie the FC-cards do send IO to more than one SAN-head causing those to failover constantly completely destroying performance). ES3 is rather old too and I don't think that even their hacked up kernel is very good at driving a large Opteron SMP box (2.6 should be MUCH better in that regard). Other than that - how well is your postgresql instance tuned to your hardware ? Stefan