From: Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>
To: Ogden <lists@darkstatic.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:13:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4E4C12BC.9050204@squeakycode.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0B8DE623-CF5C-4125-AA9E-8695A29CE0EC@darkstatic.com>
References: <959BD2FA-0312-458B-BD5F-ED358D2C47ED@darkstatic.com>
<f4e06a7cad34ee9217a3e57fd4eb0e67.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
<D89151D3-D2E5-47E3-8B90-4A573DAB5FFA@darkstatic.com>
<75A85649-2B95-43D5-8404-4776D2E580EC@darkstatic.com>
<20110817183101.GJ26302@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu>
<E6229A9F-876F-4604-900A-EC93C5B720AB@darkstatic.com>
<20110817183551.GK26302@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu>
<4E4C0D1B.4080302@squeakycode.net>
<0B8DE623-CF5C-4125-AA9E-8695A29CE0EC@darkstatic.com>
On 8/17/2011 1:55 PM, Ogden wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Andy Colson wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2011 1:35 PM, ktm@rice.edu wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:32:41PM -0500, Ogden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 17, 2011, at 1:31 PM, ktm@rice.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:26:56PM -0500, Ogden wrote:
>>>>>> I am using bonnie++ to benchmark our current Postgres system (on RAID 5) with the new one we have, which I have configured with RAID 10. The drives are the same (SAS 15K). I tried the new system with ext3 and then XFS but the results seem really outrageous as compared to the current system, or am I reading things wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The benchmark results are here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://malekkoheavyindustry.com/benchmark.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ogden
>>>>>
>>>>> That looks pretty normal to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> But such a jump from the current db01 system to this? Over 20 times difference from the current system to the new one with XFS. Is that much of a jump normal?
>>>>
>>>> Ogden
>>>
>>> Yes, RAID5 is bad for in many ways. XFS is much better than EXT3. You would get similar
>>> results with EXT4 as well, I suspect, although you did not test that.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ken
>>>
>>
>> A while back I tested ext3 and xfs myself and found xfs performs better for PG. However, I also have a photos site with 100K files (split into a small subset of directories), and xfs sucks bad on it.
>>
>> So my db is on xfs, and my photos are on ext4.
>
>
> What about the OS itself? I put the Debian linux sysem also on XFS but haven't played around with it too much. Is it better to put the OS itself on ext4 and the /var/lib/pgsql partition on XFS?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ogden
I doubt it matters. The OS is not going to batch delete thousands of
files. Once its setup, its pretty constant. I would not worry about it.
-Andy
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: andy@squeakycode.net, lists@darkstatic.com
Subject: Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++
In-Reply-To: <4E4C12BC.9050204@squeakycode.net>
* 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