Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA326B5DBD6 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:13:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51607-09 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:12:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from marajade.localdomain (97-64-237-59.client.mchsi.com [97.64.237.59]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4F1B5D803 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:12:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.10.84] (unknown [192.168.10.84]) (Authenticated sender: andy) by marajade.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 78F8940832; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:12:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <4E4C12BC.9050204@squeakycode.net> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:13:00 -0500 From: Andy Colson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ogden CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++ References: <959BD2FA-0312-458B-BD5F-ED358D2C47ED@darkstatic.com> <75A85649-2B95-43D5-8404-4776D2E580EC@darkstatic.com> <20110817183101.GJ26302@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu> <20110817183551.GK26302@staff-mud-56-27.rice.edu> <4E4C0D1B.4080302@squeakycode.net> <0B8DE623-CF5C-4125-AA9E-8695A29CE0EC@darkstatic.com> In-Reply-To: <0B8DE623-CF5C-4125-AA9E-8695A29CE0EC@darkstatic.com> 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=-0.918 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201108/198 X-Sequence-Number: 44645 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