From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Benchmark with FreeBSD 8.0 and pgbench
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 12:48:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4BEEFA75.6090708@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28569544.post@talk.nabble.com>
References: <28569544.post@talk.nabble.com>
Joao,
Wow, thanks for doing this!
In general, your tests seem to show that there isn't a substantial
penalty for using ZFS as of version 8.0.
If you have time for more tests, I'd like to ask you for a few more tweaks:
(1) change the following settings according to conventional wisdom:
wal_buffers = 8MB
effective_cache_size = 9GB
checkpoint_segments = 32
on ZFS only: full_page_writes=off
(2) What scale were you using for the pgbench database? I didn't see it
in the e-mail. It would be worth testing:
s = 10 (small database, in memory)
s = 500 (7GB, ram mostly full)
s = 1000 (14GB, slightly larger than ram)
s = 3000 (43GB, much larger than ram)
If you were only testing a small size in your runs, then the only
Filesystem behavoir you were testing was the transaction log.
(3) Try a ZFS 128K record size
(4) Centos/Ext3 appears to have had better staying power with high
numbers of clients. Can you continue testing with 50, 100 and 200
clients on that combination? And with data=writeback,noatime on Ext3?
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
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: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Benchmark with FreeBSD 8.0 and pgbench
In-Reply-To: <4BEEFA75.6090708@agliodbs.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