User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:37:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: steve.poe@gmail.com,
	"Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
cc: "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <C10B1EBC.2E7F9%llonergan@greenplum.com>
Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
Thread-Index: AcbC09aLFVkJGS7HEduD2wAWy4o9DA==
In-Reply-To: <1155780633.11188.5.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve,

If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great.

Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe it's 6
disks in a RAID10?

- Luke


On 8/16/06 7:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <steve.poe@gmail.com> wrote:

> Everyone,
> 
> I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is
> connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am
> not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs:
> 
> scsi disc
> array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> scsi disc
> array ,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6,579.9,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> scsi disc
> array ,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+
> 
> This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs
> formatted at ext2.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>> 
>>> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> 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.
>> 
>> I agree.  The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
>> 
>> Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
>> 
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> 
>