X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7509FB212 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:56:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95507-06 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:56:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw04.mi8.com [63.240.6.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DC49FA154 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:56:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.148 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:55:54 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01HOST02.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 8 Aug 2006 21:55:21 -0400 Received: from 63.80.24.130 ([63.80.24.130]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 01:55:21 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:55:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Steve Poe" cc: "Alex Turner" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and Thread-Index: Aca7Vt3VHFdt3CdKEduxKgAWy4o9DA== In-Reply-To: <721b21dc0608080957k166a7bc5t72cb3cf076e6da01@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2006 01:55:21.0791 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF7FBCF0:01C6BB56] X-WSS-ID: 68C79F234M41084480-07-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200608/121 X-Sequence-Number: 20306 Steve, On 8/8/06 9:57 AM, "Steve Poe" wrote: > On the Sun box, with 4 discs (RAID10) to one channel on the LSI RAID card, I > see an average TPS around 70. If I ran this off of one disc, I see an average > TPS of 32. > > on the HP box, with 6-discs in RAID10 and 1 spare. I see a TPS of 34. I don't > have my vmstat reports with me, but I recall the CPU utilitization on the HP > was about 50% higher. I need to check on this. Sounds like there are a few moving parts here, one of which is the ODBC driver. First - using 7.4.x postgres is a big variable - not much experience on this list with 7.4.x anymore. What OS versions are on the two machines? What is the network configuration of each - is a caching DNS server available to each? What are the contents of /etc/resolv.conf? Have you run "top" on the machines while the benchmark is running? What is the top running process, what is it doing (RSS, swap, I/O wait, etc)? Are any of the disks not healthy? Do you see any I/O errors in dmesg? Note that tarring up the database directory and untarring it actually changes the block layout of the files on the disk from what the database might have done when it was created. When you create a tar archive of the files in the DB directory, their contents will be packed in file name order in the tar archive and unpacked that way as well. By comparison, the ordering when the database lays them on disk might have been quite different. This doesn't impact the problem you describe as you are unpacking the tar file on both machines to start the process (right?). - Luke