From: John Lister <john.lister@kickstone.com>
To: Andrea Suisani <sickpig@opinioni.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:29:46 +0000
Message-ID: <50C0577A.6070401@kickstone.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50BF6980.3090800@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>
<50BF6980.3090800@opinioni.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
> 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)
>
> 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).
Hi, I found this interesting as I'm trying to do some benchmarks on my
box which is very similar to the above but I don't believe the tps is
any where near what it should be. Is the 6305 figure from xfs? I'm
assuming that your main data array is just 2 15k sas drives, are you
putting the WAL on the data array or is that stored somewhere else? Can
I ask what scaling params, etc you used to build the pgbench tables and
look at your postgresql.conf file to see if I missed something (offline
if you wish)
I'm running 8x SSDs in RAID 10 for the data and pull just under 10k on a
xfs system which is much lower than I'd expect for that setup and isn't
significantly greater than your reported results, so something must be
very wrong.
Thanks
John
--
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: john.lister@kickstone.com, sickpig@opinioni.net
Subject: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
In-Reply-To: <50C0577A.6070401@kickstone.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