Message-ID: <47DEBD7C.2060204@emproshunts.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:50:36 -0500
From: Justin <justin@emproshunts.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
CC: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
References: <f966c2ee0803052142l6a105678jfe2da92a0d9371@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0803060813570.11897@westnet.com>
	<47D00DB2.7040007@emolecules.com> <18451.1204824562@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<47D0AFC1.5070305@emolecules.com>
	<08115901408538@mail.emproshunts.com>
	<47D93A43.6020503@emolecules.com>
	<016301c8854e$851e06e0$3101a8c0@JDell>
	<dcc563d10803132312o1539215fk859bbae03f36e566@mail.gmail.com>
	<47DA1866.3050500@krogh.cc>
	<dcc563d10803132319u19480a4fn16115c415ee57844@mail.gmail.com>
	<47DA37E1.6050104@emproshunts.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0803140359220.20241@westnet.com>
	<47DA5852.30004@emproshunts.com> <47DCBBF9.1090401@emproshunts.com>
	<F38ADB71-8F77-41C8-9066-488FFCA7BD67@fastcrypt.com>
	<47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com>
In-Reply-To: <47DD6F4C.2050208@emolecules.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>
> Just out of curiosity: Last time I did research, the word seemed to be 
> that xfs was better than ext2 or ext3.  Is that not true?  Why use 
> ext2/3 at all if xfs is faster for Postgres?
>
> Criag

Ext2 vs XFS on my setup there is difference in the performance between 
the two file systems but its not OMG let switch.   XFS did better then 
Ext2 only one time, then Ext2 won out by small margin at best was 6%.   
the other test ran at 3 to 4% better than XFS performance.

 XFS has journaling so it should be safer.  I think i may stick with XFS 
as it has journaling

One thing i think is clear don't use ext3  it just kills performance by 
factors not small percents

here is article i found on XFS 
http://linux-xfs.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_white/xfs_white_paper.html

I hope this is helpful to people.  I know the process has taught me new 
things, and thanks to those that helped me out.

Before i throw this sever into production any one else want performance 
numbers.

 C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\bin>pgbench -c 10 -t 40000 -v -h 
192.168.1.9 -U
postgres play
Password:
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 40000
number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000
tps = 2181.512770 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2187.107004 (excluding connections establishing)

C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\bin>pgbench -c 10 -t 40000 -v -h 
192.168.1.9 -U
postgres play
Password:
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 40000
number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000
tps = 2248.365719 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2254.308547 (excluding connections establishing)

-----------Clients log increased to 40------------

C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\bin>pgbench -c 40 -t 10000 -v -h 
192.168.1.9 -U
postgres play
Password:
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 40
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000
tps = 2518.447629 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2548.014141 (excluding connections establishing)

C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\bin>pgbench -c 40 -t 10000 -v -h 
192.168.1.9 -U
postgres play
Password:
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 40
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 400000/400000
tps = 2606.933139 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2638.626859 (excluding connections establishing)