From: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:34:24 +0100
Message-ID: <50BF6980.3090800@opinioni.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <507BC8DE.9050109@opinioni.net>
References: <CAFwQ8rcvw4mSoJ9q+ouONCeB9dg1T9gAUV5J27MpVZrehRHayQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFwQ8rfm2AcuoFHDfBLA_hg7ffbsYNsrsaJPDqcOeGqaVW02OQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFwQ8rcyCKcoeEn62_QHMRSmJM03ULERtW6_R=3TaO0twOEV9A@mail.gmail.com>
<5076D433.7090605@opinioni.net>
<CAGTBQpYGyq70q_S_dUngSwB7yLbbCxetnfXpaMC9LEr7zL6iWA@mail.gmail.com>
<5076DA4E.80504@opinioni.net>
<507BC8DE.9050109@opinioni.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
[sorry for resuming an old thread]
[cut]
>>> Question is... will that remove the performance penalty of HyperThreading?
>>
>> So I've added to my todo list to perform a test to verify this claim :)
>
> done.
on this box:
> in a brief: the box is dell a PowerEdge r720 with 16GB of RAM,
> the cpu is a Xeon 5620 with 6 core, the OS is installed on a raid
> (sata disk 7.2k rpm) and the PGDATA is on separate RAID 1 array
> (sas 15K rpm) and the controller is a PERC H710 (bbwc with a cache
> of 512 MB). (ubuntu 12.04)
with postgres 9.2.1 and $PGDATA on a ext4 formatted partition
i've got:
> those are the results:
>
> HT HT SYSFS DIS HT BIOS DISABLE
> -c -t r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 r3
> 5 20K 1641 1831 1496 2020 1974 2033 2005 1988 1967
> 10 10K 2161 2134 2136 2277 2252 2216 1854 1824 1810
> 20 5k 2550 2508 2558 2417 2388 2357 1924 1928 1954
> 30 3333 2216 2272 2250 2333 2493 2496 1993 2009 2008
> 40 2.5K 2179 2221 2250 2568 2535 2500 2025 2048 2018
> 50 2K 2217 2213 2213 2487 2449 2604 2112 2016 2023
on the same machine with the same configuration,
having PGDATA on a xfs formatted partition gives me
a much better TPS.
e.g. pgbench -c 20 -t 5000 gives me 6305 TPS
(3 runs with "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches && /etc/init.d/postgresql-9.2 restart"
in between).
Anybody else have experienced this kind of differences
between etx4 and xfs?
Andrea
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: sickpig@opinioni.net
Subject: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
In-Reply-To: <50BF6980.3090800@opinioni.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