Message-ID: <4E893EE7.9080509@boreham.org>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 22:49:43 -0600
From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Intel 710 SSD test
References: <4E87CEDF.3000504@boreham.org> <4E893B9F.1070300@2ndQuadrant.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E893B9F.1070300@2ndQuadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/2/2011 10:35 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> That sounds about the same performance as the 320 drive I tested 
> earlier this year then.  You might try duplicating some of the 
> benchmarks I ran on that:  
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4D9D1FC3.4020207@2ndQuadrant.com
Thanks. Actually I had been looking for that email, which by brain 
remembered but my computer and Google could not find ;)
>
> Make sure to reference the capacity of the drive though.  The 320 
> units do scale their performance based on that, presumably there's 
> some of that with the 710s as well.
This is a 100G drive. The performance specs vary curiously vs capacity 
for the 710 series : write tps actually goes down as the size increases, 
but bulk write data rate is higher for the larger drives.

I ran some pgbench earlier this evening, before reading your old email 
above, so the parameters are different:

This is the new server with 100G 710 (AMD 6128 with 64G):

bash-4.1$ /usr/pgsql-9.1/bin/pgbench -T 600 -j 8 -c 64
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
query mode: simple
number of clients: 64
number of threads: 8
duration: 600 s
number of transactions actually processed: 2182014
tps = 3636.520405 (including connections establishing)
tps = 3636.738290 (excluding connections establishing)

This is the output from iostat while the test runs:
Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s     r/s     w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s 
avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
sda               0.00  4851.00    0.00 14082.00     0.00    73.76    
10.73    45.72    3.25   0.05  71.60

This is our current production server type (Dual AMD 2346HE 32G 10K 300G 
'raptor) with disk write cache turned off and with data and wal on the 
same drive:

bash-3.2$ /usr/pgsql-9.1/bin/pgbench -T 600 -j 8 -c 64
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
query mode: simple
number of clients: 64
number of threads: 8
duration: 600 s
number of transactions actually processed: 66426
tps = 108.925653 (including connections establishing)
tps = 108.941509 (excluding connections establishing)

Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s   r/s   w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s avgrq-sz 
avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
sda               0.00   438.00  0.00 201.00     0.00     2.60    
26.47    55.95  286.09   4.98 100.00

same server with disk write cache turned on:

bash-3.2$ /usr/pgsql-9.1/bin/pgbench -T 600 -j 8 -c 64
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
query mode: simple
number of clients: 64
number of threads: 8
duration: 600 s
number of transactions actually processed: 184724
tps = 305.654008 (including connections establishing)
tps = 305.694317 (excluding connections establishing)

Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s   r/s   w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s avgrq-sz 
avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
sda               0.00   668.00  0.00 530.00     0.00     4.55    
17.57   142.99  277.28   1.89 100.10

There are some OS differences between the old and new servers : old is 
running CentOS 5.7 while the new is running 6.0.
Old server has atime enabled while new has relatime mount option 
specified. Both are running PG 9.1.1 from the yum repo.

One very nice measurement is the power consumption on the new server : 
peak dissipation is 135W under the pgbench load
(measured on the ac input to the psu). Idle is draws around 90W.