Re: [PERFORM] Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware</TITL= E> </HEAD> <BODY> Joost= , On 11/15/05 11:51 AM, "Joost Kraaijeveld" <J.Kraaijeveld@Askes= is.nl> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 12:41 -0700, Steve Wampler wrote:= > Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > > If I understand correctly (I have 4GB ram): > > > > jkr@Panoramix:~/tmp$ dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3Dbigfile bs=3D8k count=3D10000= 00 > > 1000000+0 records in > > 1000000+0 records out > > 8192000000 bytes transferred in 304.085269 seconds (26939812 byte= s/sec) > > > > Which looks suspicious: 26308 MB/sec??? > > Eh? That looks more like ~25.7 MB/sec, assuming 1MB =3D 1024*1024 = bytes. Oooops. This calculation error is not typical for my testing (I think ;-)).= </BLOCKQUOTE> Summarizing the two facts of note: the write result is 1/4 of what you shou= ld be getting, and you are running 1 driver behind the firmware. You might update your driver, rerun the test, and if you still have the slo= w result, verify that your filesystem isn’t fragmented (multiple undis= ciplined apps on the same filesystem will do that). WAL on a separate disk, on a separate controller? What is the write p= erformance there? Regards, - Luke </BODY> </HTML> --B_3214937273

X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998B2DB8A8 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:08:31 -0400 (AST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86531-10 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:08:30 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw04.mi8.com [63.240.6.44]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF10FDB86C for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:08:26 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:55 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:55 -0500 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.104]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:07:54 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:07:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Joost Kraaijeveld" , "Steve Wampler" cc: "Dave Cramer" , "Pgsql-Performance" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware Thread-Index: AcXqHf6+BJAUyQ2hSW+ZhaRz2DqctQAVhWwm In-Reply-To: <1132084287.3250.41.camel@Panoramix> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2005 06:07:55.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[15C16930:01C5EA74] X-WSS-ID: 6F64133131S12016986-01-01 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=B_3214937273_22952610 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.254 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.254 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200511/265 X-Sequence-Number: 15522 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3214937273_22952610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Joost, On 11/15/05 11:51 AM, "Joost Kraaijeveld" wrote: > On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 12:41 -0700, Steve Wampler wrote: >> > Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: >>> > > If I understand correctly (I have 4GB ram): >>> > > >>> > > jkr@Panoramix:~/tmp$ dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3Dbigfile bs=3D8k count=3D1000000 >>> > > 1000000+0 records in >>> > > 1000000+0 records out >>> > > 8192000000 bytes transferred in 304.085269 seconds (26939812 bytes/= sec) >>> > > >>> > > Which looks suspicious: 26308 MB/sec??? >> > >> > Eh? That looks more like ~25.7 MB/sec, assuming 1MB =3D 1024*1024 bytes= . > Oooops. This calculation error is not typical for my testing (I think ;-)= ). Summarizing the two facts of note: the write result is 1/4 of what you should be getting, and you are running 1 driver behind the firmware. You might update your driver, rerun the test, and if you still have the slo= w result, verify that your filesystem isn=B9t fragmented (multiple undiscipline= d apps on the same filesystem will do that). WAL on a separate disk, on a separate controller? What is the write performance there? Regards, - Luke --B_3214937273_22952610 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [PERFORM] Performance PG 8.0 on dual opteron / 4GB / 3ware</TITL= E> </HEAD> <BODY> Joost= , On 11/15/05 11:51 AM, "Joost Kraaijeveld" <J.Kraaijeveld@Askes= is.nl> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 12:41 -0700, Steve Wampler wrote:= > Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > > If I understand correctly (I have 4GB ram): > > > > jkr@Panoramix:~/tmp$ dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3Dbigfile bs=3D8k count=3D10000= 00 > > 1000000+0 records in > > 1000000+0 records out > > 8192000000 bytes transferred in 304.085269 seconds (26939812 byte= s/sec) > > > > Which looks suspicious: 26308 MB/sec??? > > Eh? That looks more like ~25.7 MB/sec, assuming 1MB =3D 1024*1024 = bytes. Oooops. This calculation error is not typical for my testing (I think ;-)).= </BLOCKQUOTE> Summarizing the two facts of note: the write result is 1/4 of what you shou= ld be getting, and you are running 1 driver behind the firmware. You might update your driver, rerun the test, and if you still have the slo= w result, verify that your filesystem isn’t fragmented (multiple undis= ciplined apps on the same filesystem will do that). WAL on a separate disk, on a separate controller? What is the write p= erformance there? Regards, - Luke </BODY> </HTML> --B_3214937273_22952610--