Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ffZ1n-0008AI-80 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:05:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ffZ1k-0006wx-Lv for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:05:04 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ffZ1k-0006wq-F8 for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:05:04 +0000 Received: from cat-porwal-prod-mail1.catalyst.net.nz ([2404:130:4080::4]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ffZ1e-0004pP-3m for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 23:05:03 +0000 Authentication-Results: auth=pass smtp.auth=mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz smtp.mailfrom=mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz Received: from [IPv6:2406:e001:cf9:1:b008:12de:ec4a:828f] (unknown [IPv6:2406:e001:cf9:1:b008:12de:ec4a:828f]) (Authenticated sender: mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz) by cat-porwal-prod-mail1.catalyst.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0AAA380B3E; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 11:04:45 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case To: Neto pr , Fabio Pardi Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org References: <01bbbc88-2a47-f078-ea40-ab2c1acafa1f@portavita.eu> From: Mark Kirkwood Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 11:04:44 +1200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Ok, so dropping the cache is good. How are you ensuring that you have one test setup on the HDDs and one on the SSDs? i.e do you have 2 postgres instances? or are you using one instance with tablespaces to locate the relevant tables? If the 2nd case then you will get pollution of shared_buffers if you don't restart between the HHD and SSD tests. If you have 2 instances then you need to carefully check the parameters are set the same (and probably shut the HDD instance down when testing the SSD etc). I can see a couple of things in your setup that might pessimize the SDD case: - you have OS on the SSD - if you tests make the system swap then this will wreck the SSD result - you have RAID 0 SSD...some of the cheaper ones slow down when you do this. maybe test with a single SSD regards Mark On 18/07/18 01:04, Neto pr wrote (note snippage): > (echo 3> / proc / sys / vm / drop_caches; > > discs: > - 2 units of Samsung Evo SSD 500 GB (mounted on ZERO RAID) > - 2 SATA 7500 Krpm HDD units - 1TB (mounted on ZERO RAID) > > - The Operating System and the Postgresql DBMS are installed on the SSD disk. > >