MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADFyZw7aGoD0AaStxdyHByR5Qta=M5wx0v=iptKLhPUp+EOKvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADFyZw7aGoD0AaStxdyHByR5Qta=M5wx0v=iptKLhPUp+EOKvA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:15:28 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAHyXU0zhpFtoOHgC8Fvb92rs038ofc0VBP7aKVnv1=rsLCxazQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
To: Charles Nadeau <charles.nadeau@gmail.com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Charles Nadeau
<charles.nadeau@gmail.com> wrote:
> I=E2=80=99m running PostgreSQL 9.6.3 on Ubuntu 16.10 (kernel 4.4.0-85-gen=
eric).
> Hardware is:
>
> *2x Intel Xeon E5550
>
> *72GB RAM
>
> *Hardware RAID10 (4 x 146GB SAS 10k) P410i controller with 1GB FBWC (80%
> read/20% write) for Postgresql data only:
>
> The problem I have is very poor read. When I benchmark my array with fio I
> get random reads of about 200MB/s and 1100IOPS and sequential reads of ab=
out
> 286MB/s and 21000IPS. But when I watch my queries using pg_activity, I get
> at best 4MB/s. Also using dstat I can see that iowait time is at about 25=
%.
> This problem is not query-dependent.

Stop right there.     1100 iops * 8kb =3D ~8mb/sec raw which might
reasonably translate to 4mb/sec to the client. 200mb/sec random
read/sec on spinning media is simply not plausible; your benchmark is
lying to you.   Random reads on spinning media are absolutely going to
be storage bound.

merlin


--=20
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance