pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: Areca 1260 Performance
7+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
@ 2006-12-06 23:40 Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Brian Wipf @ 2006-12-06 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
the cores would be better for us overall or not.
On 6-Dec-06, at 4:25 PM, Ron wrote:
> The 1100 series is PCI-X based. The 1200 series is PCI-E x8
> based. Apples and oranges.
>
> I still think Luke Lonergan or Josh Berkus may have some
> interesting ideas regarding possible OS and SW optimizations.
>
> WD1500ADFDs are each good for ~90MBps read and ~60MBps write ASTR.
> That means your 16 HD RAID 10 should be sequentially transferring
> ~720MBps read and ~480MBps write.
> Clearly more HDs will be required to allow a ARC-12xx to attain its
> peak performance.
>
> One thing that occurs to me with your present HW is that your CPU
> utilization numbers are relatively high.
> Since 5160s are clocked about as high as is available, that leaves
> trying CPUs with more cores and trying more CPUs.
>
> You've got basically got 4 HW threads at the moment. If you can,
> evaluate CPUs and mainboards that allow for 8 or 16 HW threads.
> Intel-wise, that's the new Kentfields. AMD-wise, you have lot's of
> 4S mainboard options, but the AMD 4C CPUs won't be available until
> sometime late in 2007.
>
> I've got other ideas, but this list is not the appropriate venue
> for the level of detail required.
>
> Ron Peacetree
>
>
> At 05:30 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
>> On 6-Dec-06, at 2:47 PM, Brian Wipf wrote:
>>
>>>> Hmmm. Something is not right. With a 16 HD RAID 10 based on 10K
>>>> rpm HDs, you should be seeing higher absolute performance numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Find out what HW the Areca guys and Tweakers guys used to test the
>>>> 1280s.
>>>> At LW2006, Areca was demonstrating all-in-cache reads and writes
>>>> of ~1600MBps and ~1300MBps respectively along with RAID 0
>>>> Sustained Rates of ~900MBps read, and ~850MBps write.
>>>>
>>>> Luke, I know you've managed to get higher IO rates than this with
>>>> this class of HW. Is there a OS or SW config issue Brian should
>>>> closely investigate?
>>>
>>> I wrote 1280 by a mistake. It's actually a 1260. Sorry about that.
>>> The IOP341 class of cards weren't available when we ordered the
>>> parts for the box, so we had to go with the 1260. The box(es) we
>>> build next month will either have the 1261ML or 1280 depending on
>>> whether we go 16 or 24 disk.
>>>
>>> I noticed Bucky got almost 800 random seeks per second on her 6
>>> disk 10000 RPM SAS drive Dell PowerEdge 2950. The random seek
>>> performance of this box disappointed me the most. Even running 2
>>> concurrent bonnies, the random seek performance only increased from
>>> 644 seeks/sec to 813 seeks/sec. Maybe there is some setting I'm
>>> missing? This card looked pretty impressive on tweakers.net.
>>
>> Areca has some performance numbers in a downloadable PDF for the
>> Areca ARC-1120, which is in the same class as the ARC-1260, except
>> with 8 ports. With all 8 drives in a RAID 0 the card gets the
>> following performance numbers:
>>
>> Card single thread write 20 thread write single
>> thread read 20 thread read
>> ARC-1120 321.26 MB/s 404.76 MB/s 412.55
>> MB/ s 672.45 MB/s
>>
>> My numbers for sequential i/o for the ARC-1260 in a 16 disk RAID 10
>> are slightly better than the ARC-1120 in an 8 disk RAID 0 for a
>> single thread. I guess this means my numbers are reasonable.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
@ 2006-12-07 00:26 ` Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 08:37 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ron @ 2006-12-07 00:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
At 06:40 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
>I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
>on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
>MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
>the cores would be better for us overall or not.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not endorsing the use of Kentsfield.
I am recommending =evaluating= Kentsfield.
I am also recommending the evaluation of 2C 4S AMD solutions.
All this stuff is so leading edge that it is far from clear what the
RW performance of DBMS based on these components will be without
extensive testing of =your= app under =your= workload.
One thing that is clear from what you've posted thus far is that you
are going to needmore HDs if you want to have any chance of fully
utilizing your Areca HW.
Out of curiosity, where are you geographically?
Hoping I'm being helpful,
Ron
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
@ 2006-12-07 08:37 ` Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 12:34 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 15:43 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Brian Wipf @ 2006-12-07 08:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On 6-Dec-06, at 5:26 PM, Ron wrote:
> At 06:40 PM 12/6/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
>> I appreciate your suggestions, Ron. And that helps answer my question
>> on processor selection for our next box; I wasn't sure if the lower
>> MHz speed of the Kentsfield compared to the Woodcrest but with double
>> the cores would be better for us overall or not.
> Please do not misunderstand me. I am not endorsing the use of
> Kentsfield.
> I am recommending =evaluating= Kentsfield.
>
> I am also recommending the evaluation of 2C 4S AMD solutions.
>
> All this stuff is so leading edge that it is far from clear what
> the RW performance of DBMS based on these components will be
> without extensive testing of =your= app under =your= workload.
I want the best performance for the dollar, so I can't rule anything
out. Right now I'm leaning towards Kentsfield, but I will do some
more research before I make a decision. We probably won't wait much
past January though.
> One thing that is clear from what you've posted thus far is that
> you are going to needmore HDs if you want to have any chance of
> fully utilizing your Areca HW.
Do you know off hand where I might find a chassis that can fit 24[+]
drives? The last chassis we ordered was through Supermicro, and the
largest they carry fits 16 drives.
> Hoping I'm being helpful
I appreciate any help I can get.
Brian Wipf
<brian@clickspace.com>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 08:37 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
@ 2006-12-07 12:34 ` Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ron @ 2006-12-07 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
At 03:37 AM 12/7/2006, Brian Wipf wrote:
>On 6-Dec-06, at 5:26 PM, Ron wrote:
>>
>>All this stuff is so leading edge that it is far from clear what
>>the RW performance of DBMS based on these components will be
>>without extensive testing of =your= app under =your= workload.
>I want the best performance for the dollar, so I can't rule anything
>out. Right now I'm leaning towards Kentsfield, but I will do some
>more research before I make a decision. We probably won't wait much
>past January though.
Kentsfield's outrageously high pricing and operating costs (power and
cooling) are not likely to make it the cost/performance winner.
OTOH,
1= ATM it is the way to throw the most cache per socket at a DBMS
within the Core2 CPU line (Tulsa has even more at 16MB per CPU).
2= SSSE3 and other Core2 optimizations have led to some impressive
performance numbers- unless raw clock rate is the thing that can help
you the most.
If what you need for highest performance is the absolute highest
clock rate or most cache per core, then bench some Intel Tulsa's.
Apps with memory footprints too large for on die or in socket caches
or that require extreme memory subsystem performance are still best
served by AMD CPUs.
If you are getting the impression that it is presently complicated
deciding which CPU is best for any specific pg app, then I am making
the impression I intend to.
>>One thing that is clear from what you've posted thus far is that
>>you are going to needmore HDs if you want to have any chance of
>>fully utilizing your Areca HW.
>Do you know off hand where I might find a chassis that can fit 24[+]
>drives? The last chassis we ordered was through Supermicro, and the
>largest they carry fits 16 drives.
www.pogolinux.com has 24 and 48 bay 3.5" HD chassis'; and a 64 bay
2.5" chassis. Tell them I sent you.
www.impediment.com are folks I trust regarding all things storage
(and RAM). Again, tell them I sent you.
www.aberdeeninc.com is also a vendor I've had luck with, but try Pogo
and Impediment first.
Good luck and please post what happens,
Ron Peacetree
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 08:37 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
@ 2006-12-07 15:43 ` Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>
2006-12-07 16:02 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Gene <genekhart@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Shane Ambler @ 2006-12-07 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>; +Cc: Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>; pgsql-performance
>> One thing that is clear from what you've posted thus far is that you
>> are going to needmore HDs if you want to have any chance of fully
>> utilizing your Areca HW.
> Do you know off hand where I might find a chassis that can fit 24[+]
> drives? The last chassis we ordered was through Supermicro, and the
> largest they carry fits 16 drives.
Chenbro has a 24 drive case - the largest I have seen. It fits the big
4/8 cpu boards as well.
http://www.chenbro.com/corporatesite/products_01features.php?serno=43
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL@007Marketing.com
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 08:37 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 15:43 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>
@ 2006-12-07 16:02 ` Gene <genekhart@gmail.com>
2006-12-08 00:11 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Gene @ 2006-12-07 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
I'm building a SuperServer 6035B server (16 scsi drives). My schema has
basically two large tables (million+ per day) each which are partitioned
daily, and queried independently of each other. Would you recommend a raid1
system partition and 14 drives in a raid 10 or should i create separate
partitions/tablespaces for the two large tables and indexes?
Thanks
Gene
On 12/7/06, Shane Ambler <pgsql@007marketing.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> One thing that is clear from what you've posted thus far is that you
> >> are going to needmore HDs if you want to have any chance of fully
> >> utilizing your Areca HW.
> > Do you know off hand where I might find a chassis that can fit 24[+]
> > drives? The last chassis we ordered was through Supermicro, and the
> > largest they carry fits 16 drives.
>
> Chenbro has a 24 drive case - the largest I have seen. It fits the big
> 4/8 cpu boards as well.
>
> http://www.chenbro.com/corporatesite/products_01features.php?serno=43
>
>
> --
>
> Shane Ambler
> pgSQL@007Marketing.com
>
> Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
>
> ---------------------------(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
>
--
Gene Hart
cell: 443-604-2679
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Areca 1260 Performance
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 08:37 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 15:43 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>
2006-12-07 16:02 ` Re: Areca 1260 Performance Gene <genekhart@gmail.com>
@ 2006-12-08 00:11 ` Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ron @ 2006-12-08 00:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gene@sotech.us; +Cc: pgsql-performance
At 11:02 AM 12/7/2006, Gene wrote:
>I'm building a SuperServer 6035B server (16 scsi drives). My schema
>has basically two large tables (million+ per day) each which are
>partitioned daily, and queried independently of each other. Would
>you recommend a raid1 system partition and 14 drives in a raid 10 or
>should i create separate partitions/tablespaces for the two large
>tables and indexes?
Not an easy question to answer w/o knowing more about your actual
queries and workload.
To keep the math simple, let's assume each SCSI HD has and ASTR of
75MBps. A 14 HD RAID 10 therefore has an ASTR of 7* 75= 525MBps. If
the rest of your system can handle this much or more bandwidth, then
this is most probably the best config.
Dedicating spindles to specific tables is usually best done when
there is HD bandwidth that can't be utilized if the HDs are in a
larger set +and+ there is a significant hot spot that can use
dedicated resources.
My first attempt would be to use other internal HDs for a RAID 1
systems volume and use all 16 of your HBA HDs for a 16 HD RAID 10 array.
Then I'd bench the config to see if it had acceptable performance.
If yes, stop. Else start considering the more complicated alternatives.
Remember that adding HDs and RAM is far cheaper than even a few hours
of skilled technical labor.
Ron Peacetree
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-12-08 00:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-12-06 23:40 Re: Areca 1260 Performance Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 00:26 ` Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 08:37 ` Brian Wipf <brian@clickspace.com>
2006-12-07 12:34 ` Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
2006-12-07 15:43 ` Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>
2006-12-07 16:02 ` Gene <genekhart@gmail.com>
2006-12-08 00:11 ` Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net>
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