Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EAE9632C9A for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:58:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27255-04 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:58:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com (mail-ey0-f174.google.com [209.85.215.174]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1AC632BD2 for ; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:58:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: by eya25 with SMTP id 25so1314517eya.19 for ; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:58:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0JHdfHFi8ooRNlo2lqt1U2xqprgTFYd4KTKm6j4Blmo=; b=Vs5Z96rShWdzzLK1Ju2gXrUPtNNIYJvZbrFmJOSA27/fA8cEN4RPOfCVDMNDeFcM3X dwM6c1a+fFna1j1/fCwXqSDefjfkpl05CdH4h8cqA6lFN3qqC/mHbzSYUcTwoqDOYxln S5oAz6LSfm1+Zxo0YzNXJr7r5kupdK6Cn1e84= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=uc0ZleV0a7OcQv0AvXg4iWMAd2TEjIPk6EQeStz0sBiLfYURia0VX8FgcigE41rCf/ /tni1btgJenk1cJ+TLjKnPd8cRUeTfHerTeC5/n4kFhsoIjPbRI/CnGHPc8EY+6n4hLs lp/Ez1UJqN50Cjvb+woU96bHRYhIl5rnXB6Q8= Received: by 10.213.28.134 with SMTP id m6mr4184960ebc.96.1280761122461; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (5357DA75.cable.casema.nl [83.87.218.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm8954887eeh.14.2010.08.02.07.58.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C56DD8B.6050303@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:00:27 +0200 From: Yeb Havinga User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Merlin Moncure CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Greg Smith Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD References: <4C4A9452.9070100@gmail.com> <4C4B1F84.5030306@2ndquadrant.com> <4C4B4B41.7000800@2ndquadrant.com> <4C52E957.8020304@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201008/4 X-Sequence-Number: 39847 Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote: > >> Postgres settings: >> 8.4.4 >> --with-blocksize=4 >> I saw about 10% increase in performance compared to 8KB blocksizes. >> > > That's very interesting -- we need more testing in that department... > Definately - that 10% number was on the old-first hardware (the core 2 E6600). After reading my post and the 185MBps with 18500 reads/s number I was a bit suspicious whether I did the tests on the new hardware with 4K, because 185MBps / 18500 reads/s is ~10KB / read, so I thought thats a lot closer to 8KB than 4KB. I checked with show block_size and it was 4K. Then I redid the tests on the new server with the default 8KB blocksize and got about 4700 tps (TPC-B/300)... 67/47 = 1.47. So it seems that on newer hardware, the difference is larger than 10%. regards, Yeb Havinga