From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Testing Sandforce SSD
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:21:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4C5744F5.3020805@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C56DD8B.6050303@gmail.com>
References: <4C4A9452.9070100@gmail.com>
<4C4B1F84.5030306@2ndquadrant.com>
<4C4B4B41.7000800@2ndquadrant.com>
<4C52E957.8020304@gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNX63EsRtNjtKeeygymWjH8VA3EWwxBzXGCy0=@mail.gmail.com>
<4C56DD8B.6050303@gmail.com>
> 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%.
That doesn't make much sense unless there's some special advantage to a
4K blocksize with the hardware itself. Can you just do a basic
filesystem test (like Bonnie++) with a 4K vs. 8K blocksize?
Also, are you running your pgbench tests more than once, just to account
for randomizing?
--
-- 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: Testing Sandforce SSD
In-Reply-To: <4C5744F5.3020805@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