Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgWq5-000881-QI for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:29:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgWq4-0008Gq-Mw for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:29:48 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgWq3-0008GM-Vk for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:29:48 +0000 Received: from out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net ([62.24.128.239]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgWq1-0003Mf-OT for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:29:47 +0000 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQCAIlWwFBPS06n/2dsb2JhbAANN4NHunuDEQEBAQECAThABgsLDhMWBAsJAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBiAaub5NlkHgDqTw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,228,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="407487273" Received: from 79-75-78-167.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.6.20]) ([79.75.78.167]) by out1.ip03ir2.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2012 08:29:41 +0000 Message-ID: <50C0577A.6070401@kickstone.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:29:46 +0000 From: John Lister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Suisani , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance] References: <5076D433.7090605@opinioni.net> <5076DA4E.80504@opinioni.net> <507BC8DE.9050109@opinioni.net> <50BF6980.3090800@opinioni.net> In-Reply-To: <50BF6980.3090800@opinioni.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org > 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