Subject: Re: pgbench results arent accurate
To: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
References: 
 <CA+t6e1nofA5=w1HnknWUTvXsmBryqiPEzgdouiqgdYL0tL1Uuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR12MB27966FF94317A623FF8BB011ECA00@DM6PR12MB2796.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+t6e1mqqnLfdM9x0XyLtd6d4xjr9QMQjpB4hWcn_8tr+s8ntg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM6PR12MB2796A3E896A30D9D6AD7ACF9ECA00@DM6PR12MB2796.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+t6e1m6ocV7JR4J2zn6Nv5jmF0Wv=zuXAae1qH3i9bJrvfqeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+t6e1mzeBgT+F3jm0jjChaGSh+G20ZcmG+Bdfi83+NCbeCL7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>
Message-ID: <9cccf498-527f-cd7b-8601-853d10b7990c@catalyst.net.nz>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 16:10:50 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+t6e1mzeBgT+F3jm0jjChaGSh+G20ZcmG+Bdfi83+NCbeCL7A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

Hi, I can see two issues making you get variable results:

1/ Number of clients > scale factor

Using -c16 and -s 6 means you are largely benchmarking lock contention 
for a row in the branches table (it has 6 rows in your case). So 
randomness in *which* rows each client tries to lock will make for 
unwanted variation.


2/ Short run times

That 1st run is 5s duration. This will be massively influenced by the 
above point about randomness for locking a branches row.


I'd recommend:

- always run at least -T600

- use -s of at least 1.5x your largest -c setting (I usually use -s 100 
for testing 1-32 clients).

regards

Mark

On 17/12/18 12:58 AM, Mariel Cherkassky wrote:
> As Greg suggested, update you all that each vm has its own dedicated 
> esx. Every esx has it`s own local disks.
> I run it one time on two different servers that has the same hardware 
> and same postgresql db (version and conf). The results :
> pgbench -i -s 6  pgbench -p 5432 -U postgres
>  pgbench -c 16 -j 4 -T 5 -U postgres pgbench
> MACHINE 1
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)>
> scaling factor: 6
> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 16
> number of threads: 4
> duration: 5 s
> number of transactions actually processed: 669
> latency average = 122.633 ms
> tps = 130.470828 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 130.620286 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> MACHINE 2
>
> pgbench -c 16 -j 4 -T 600 -U postgres -p 5433 pgbench
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)>
> scaling factor: 6
> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 16
> number of threads: 4
> duration: 600 s
> number of transactions actually processed: 2393723
> latency average = 4.011 ms
> tps = 3989.437514 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 3989.473036 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> any idea what can cause such a difference ? Both of the machines have 
> 20core and 65GB of ram.
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בדצמ׳ 2018 ב-15:54 מאת ‪Mariel Cherkassky‬‏ 
> <‪mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com <mailto:mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com>‬‏>:‬
>
>     Ok, I'll do that.  Thanks .
>
>     ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בדצמ׳ 2018 ב-15:54 מאת ‪Greg Clough‬‏
>     <‪Greg.Clough@ihsmarkit.com <mailto:Greg.Clough@ihsmarkit.com>‬‏>:‬
>
>         Hmmm... sounds like you’ve got most of it covered.  It may be
>         a good idea to send that last message back to the list, as
>         maybe others will have better ideas.
>
>         Greg.
>
>         *From:* Mariel Cherkassky <mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com
>         <mailto:mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com>>
>         *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2018 1:45 PM
>         *To:* Greg Clough <Greg.Clough@ihsmarkit.com
>         <mailto:Greg.Clough@ihsmarkit.com>>
>         *Subject:* Re: pgbench results arent accurate
>
>         Both of the machines are the only vms in a dedicated esx for
>         each one. Each esx has local disks.
>
>         On Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 3:05 PM Greg Clough
>         <Greg.Clough@ihsmarkit.com <mailto:Greg.Clough@ihsmarkit.com>
>         wrote:
>
>             > I installed a new postgres 9.6 on both of my machines.
>
>             Where is your storage?  Is it local, or on a SAN?  A SAN
>             will definitely have a cache, so possibly there is another
>             layer of cache that you’re not accounting for.
>
>             Greg Clough.
>
>             ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>             This e-mail, including accompanying communications and
>             attachments, is strictly confidential and only for the
>             intended recipient. Any retention, use or disclosure not
>             expressly authorised by IHSMarkit is prohibited. This
>             email is subject to all waivers and other terms at the
>             following link:
>             https://ihsmarkit.com/Legal/EmailDisclaimer.html
>
>             Please visit www.ihsmarkit.com/about/contact-us.html
>             <http://www.ihsmarkit.com/about/contact-us.html> for
>             contact information on our offices worldwide.
>
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         This e-mail, including accompanying communications and
>         attachments, is strictly confidential and only for the
>         intended recipient. Any retention, use or disclosure not
>         expressly authorised by IHSMarkit is prohibited. This email is
>         subject to all waivers and other terms at the following link:
>         https://ihsmarkit.com/Legal/EmailDisclaimer.html
>
>         Please visit www.ihsmarkit.com/about/contact-us.html
>         <http://www.ihsmarkit.com/about/contact-us.html> for contact
>         information on our offices worldwide.
>