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 C970A9FB2EF for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:16:17 -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 83837-10 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:16:09 +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 9CEB89FB2DA for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:16:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.110 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:16:02 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:15:41 -0400 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 ( [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:15:40 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:15:38 -0700 Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Michael Stone" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and Thread-Index: Aca8j9XNFG1FVSiDEduJGAAWy4o9DA== In-Reply-To: <20060810110935.GF2900@mathom.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2006 15:15:41.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7EB11D0:01C6BC8F] X-WSS-ID: 68C592384M41841017-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.635 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200608/186 X-Sequence-Number: 20371 Mike, On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: >> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from >> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well. > > If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate > partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog). If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration. Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver therein. - Luke