Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD2A2E2FD4 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:55:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03202-01 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:55:23 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mail.emolecules.com (66-226-76-106.dedicated.abac.net [66.226.76.106]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BFB2E2F7A for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:55:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 13667 invoked by uid 2020); 12 Mar 2008 20:55:19 -0800 Received: from wsip-68-224-174-233.sd.sd.cox.net (HELO lisa-james-computer.local) (68.224.174.233) by 192.168.0.4 with SMTP; 12 Mar 2008 20:55:19 -0800 Message-ID: <47D8B3B6.3010606@emolecules.com> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:18 -0700 From: Craig James User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 References: <20080306060829.GA21084@a-kretschmer.de> <47CF8EA6.8070503@mark.mielke.cc> <20080306063643.GB21084@a-kretschmer.de> <3E9C3A51-C28E-4B75-9739-E344DAC72880@fastcrypt.com> <47D00DB2.7040007@emolecules.com> <18451.1204824562@sss.pgh.pa.us> <47D0AFC1.5070305@emolecules.com> In-Reply-To: <47D0AFC1.5070305@emolecules.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.489 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.927, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URI_HEX=1.316 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200803/265 X-Sequence-Number: 29219 I just received a new server and thought benchmarks would be interesting. I think this looks pretty good, but maybe there are some suggestions about the configuration file. This is a web app, a mix of read/write, where writes tend to be "insert into ... (select ...)" where the resulting insert is on the order of 100 to 10K rows of two integers. An external process also uses a LOT of CPU power along with each query. Thanks, Craig Configuration: Dell 2950 8 CPU (Intel 2GHz Xeon) 8 GB memory Dell Perc 6i with battery-backed cache RAID 10 of 8x 146GB SAS 10K 2.5" disks Everything (OS, WAL and databases) are on the one RAID array. Diffs from original configuration: max_connections = 1000 shared_buffers = 400MB work_mem = 256MB max_fsm_pages = 1000000 max_fsm_relations = 5000 wal_buffers = 256kB effective_cache_size = 4GB Bonnie output (slightly reformatted) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Delete files in random order...done. Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP 16G 64205 99 234252 38 112924 26 65275 98 293852 24 940.3 1 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 12203 95 +++++ +++ 19469 94 12297 95 +++++ +++ 15578 82 www.xxx.com,16G,64205,99,234252,38,112924,26,65275,98,293852,24,940.3,1,16,12203,95,+++++,+++,19469,94,12297,95,+++++,+++,15578,82 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ $ pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -v test -U test starting vacuum...end. starting vacuum accounts...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 1 number of clients: 10 number of transactions per client: 10000 number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000 tps = 2786.377933 (including connections establishing) tps = 2787.888209 (excluding connections establishing)