Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XUiyn-0005AH-AE for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:11:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XUiym-000581-R0 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:11:04 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XUiyl-00057s-M8 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:11:03 +0000 Received: from smtp-o-3.desy.de ([2001:638:700:1038::1:9c]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XUiye-0007Pd-9j for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:11:02 +0000 Received: from smtp-map-1.desy.de (smtp-map-1.desy.de [131.169.56.66]) by smtp-o-3.desy.de (DESY-O-3) with ESMTP id 443522807DE for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ZITSWEEP2.win.desy.de (zitsweep2.win.desy.de [131.169.97.96]) by smtp-map-1.desy.de (DESY_MAP_1) with ESMTP id 33DE013E88 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from smtp-intra-1.desy.de (lb-40-26.desy.de) by ZITSWEEP2.win.desy.de (Clearswift SMTPRS 5.5.0) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:55 +0200 Received: from z-mta-3.desy.de (z-mta-3.desy.de [131.169.55.137]) by smtp-intra-1.desy.de (DESY-INTRA-1) with ESMTP id 102123E906; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:55 +0200 (MEST) Received: from z-mta-3.desy.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z-mta-3.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06670400C4; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from z-mta-3.desy.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z-mta-3.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D2E400C9; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from z-mbx-2.desy.de (z-mbx-2.desy.de [131.169.55.140]) by z-mta-3.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF162400C4; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:10:54 +0200 (CEST) From: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" To: Mark Kirkwood Cc: Merlin Moncure , postgres performance list Message-ID: <609416895.45709.1411074654752.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> In-Reply-To: <541B4704.9090305@catalyst.net.nz> References: <45142416.42827.1411033201079.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> <88549888.42916.1411034301200.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> <541B4704.9090305@catalyst.net.nz> Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.7_GA_6021 (ZimbraWebClient - FF32 (Linux)/8.0.7_GA_6021) Thread-Topic: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 Thread-Index: eXfFZveW3bhile1WXlUDWJ3uaUWkbw== X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Kirkwood" > To: "Merlin Moncure" , "Tigran Mkrtchyan" > Cc: "postgres performance list" > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:56:36 PM > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 > > On 19/09/14 08:32, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran > > wrote: > >> > >> 9.3.5: > >> 0.035940 END; > >> > >> > >> 9.4beta2: > >> 0.957854 END; > > > > > > time being spent on 'END' is definitely suggesting i/o related issues. > > This is making me very skeptical that postgres is the source of the > > problem. I also thing synchronous_commit is not set properly on the > > new instance (or possibly there is a bug or some such). Can you > > verify via: > > > > select * from pg_settings where name = 'synchronous_commit'; > > > > on both servers? > > > > Yes, does look suspicious. It *could* be that the 9.4 case is getting > unlucky and checkpointing just before the end of the 60s run, and 9.3 > isn't. 10 minutes run had the same results. Is there some kind of statistics which can tell there time is spend? Or the only way is to run on solaris with dtrace? For me it's more important to find why I get only 1500tps with 9.3. The test with 9.4 was just a hope for a magic code change that will give me a better performance. Tigran. > > > What is iowait? For pci-e SSD, these drives don't seem very fast... > > > > > > > > These look like rebranded Micron P320's and should be extremely > fast...However I note that my Crucial/Micron M550's are very fast for > most writes *but* are much slower for sync writes (and fsync) that > happen at commit... > > Cheers > > Mark > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance