From: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Benchmarking a large server
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 17:32:19 -0700
Message-ID: <4DC88793.4000708@emolecules.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikecJCGWH0WyKFiSnC08kmcwS7FqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTikONPZ_7zQNfbyyN4MGBnn5PXHrAg@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTikecJCGWH0WyKFiSnC08kmcwS7FqA@mail.gmail.com>
2011/5/9 Chris Hoover<revoohc@gmail.com>:
> I've got a fun problem.
> My employer just purchased some new db servers that are very large. The
> specs on them are:
> 4 Intel X7550 CPU's (32 physical cores, HT turned off)
> 1 TB Ram
> 1.3 TB Fusion IO (2 1.3 TB Fusion IO Duo cards in a raid 10)
> 3TB Sas Array (48 15K 146GB spindles)
> The issue we are running into is how do we benchmark this server,
> specifically, how do we get valid benchmarks for the Fusion IO card?
> Normally to eliminate the cache effect, you run iozone and other benchmark
> suites at 2x the ram. However, we can't do that due to 2TB> 1.3TB.
> So, does anyone have any suggestions/experiences in benchmarking storage
> when the storage is smaller then 2x memory?
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do you care? If you have 1TB RAM and just a little more actual disk space, it seems like your database will always be cached in memory anyway. If you "eliminate the cach effect," won't the benchmark actually give you the wrong real-life results?
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
Subject: Re: Benchmarking a large server
In-Reply-To: <4DC88793.4000708@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