From: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 13:43:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4820C30A.8010709@emolecules.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805061605030.11474@westnet.com>
References: <D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C201FA62C8@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at>
<C050E63A-2209-4E89-AA99-6A327CCE7380@torgo.978.org>
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804111736580.20402@aragorn.flymine.org>
<47FFA7FF.10801@postnewspapers.com.au>
<544D07A2-EB3F-4D91-A749-0C4D5D38AB80@gmail.com>
<481F992D.7070509@emolecules.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0805052354120.3752@westnet.com>
<4820A3C2.4000307@emolecules.com>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0805061605030.11474@westnet.com>
Greg Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Craig James wrote:
>
>> I only did two runs of each, which took about 24 minutes. Like the
>> first round of tests, the "noise" in the measurements (about 10%)
>> exceeds the difference between scheduler-algorithm performance, except
>> that "anticipatory" seems to be measurably slower.
>
> Those are much better results. Any test that says anticipatory is
> anything other than useless for database system use with a good
> controller I presume is broken, so that's how I know you're in the right
> ballpark now but weren't before.
>
> In order to actually get some useful data out of the noise that is
> pgbench, you need a lot more measurements of longer runs. As
> perspective, the last time I did something in this area, in order to get
> enough data to get a clear picture I ran tests for 12 hours. I'm hoping
> to repeat that soon with some more common hardware that gives useful
> results I can give out.
This data is good enough for what I'm doing. There were reports from non-RAID users that the I/O scheduling could make as much as a 4x difference in performance (which makes sense for non-RAID), but these tests show me that three of the four I/O schedulers are within 10% of each other. Since this matches my intuition of how battery-backed RAID will work, I'm satisfied. If our servers get overloaded to the point where 10% matters, then I need a much more dramatic solution, like faster machines or more machines.
Craig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: craig_james@emolecules.com, gsmith@gregsmith.com
Subject: Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers
In-Reply-To: <4820C30A.8010709@emolecules.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
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