Received: from localhost (uranus.hub.org [200.46.204.60]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1619FB29B for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:34:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.60]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34038-01 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:34:05 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B38E9FB296 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:34:04 -0400 (AST) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so1343667ugf for ; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:34:03 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=AlpAEqt/F1nRCUzqeytKctuqWbKmvM6vTrrOCLFL7ExrJdA17n1C9gbQsVG8PswU5Fgoer6XiRsIhS+2YYBMUFeHbehlLk1MCMuHV0+rfknL/XZNJkZCY1DLw+1iTfkF5ehrtbALI7E2geNIlu3zSCaO/Us2M+FeVQzu6HiD6X0= Received: by 10.78.185.16 with SMTP id i16mr10017497huf.1163003642972; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:34:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.45.3 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:34:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:34:02 -0500 From: "Merlin Moncure" To: "Markus Schaber" Subject: Re: Easy read-heavy benchmark kicking around? Cc: "Brian Hurt" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <45520338.2050804@logix-tt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20061102160057.GA26580@oppetid.no> <454F9F62.9070408@janestcapital.com> <45520338.2050804@logix-tt.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200611/82 X-Sequence-Number: 21852 On 11/8/06, Markus Schaber wrote: > Hi, Brian, > > Brian Hurt wrote: > > > So the question is: is there an easy to install and run, read-heavy > > benchmark out there that I can wave at them to get them to fix the > > problem? > > For sequential read performance, use dd. Most variants of dd I've seen > output some timing information, and if not, do a "time dd > if=/your/device of=/dev/null bs=1M" on the partition. we had a similar problem with a hitachi san, the ams200. Their performance group refused to admit the fact that 50mb/sec dd test was a valid performance benchmark and needed to be addressed. Yes, that was a HITACHI SAN, the AMS200, which hitachi's performance group claimed was 'acceptable performance'. This was the advice we got after swapping out all the hardware and buying an entitlement to redhat enterprise which we had to do to get them to talk to us. oh, the unit also lost a controller after about a week of operation...the unit being a HITACHI SAN, the AMS200. any questions? merlin p.s. we have had good experiences with the adtx.