Re: Very poor read performance, query independent

public inbox for [email protected]  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Mark Kirkwood <[email protected]>
To: Charles Nadeau <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-performa. <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 18:51:34 +1200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADFyZw579_W96dD_beduHeCFomVg1Xe8P+Kpi6jq3Z8+GsYVjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFyZw7aGoD0AaStxdyHByR5Qta=M5wx0v=iptKLhPUp+EOKvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CADFyZw4UanW5TbFajWKWhN9XcW+8gtCXw+kssHo47Wpr1A=zJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<DM5PR07MB28103FD558CB6628CECE07BEDAA90@DM5PR07MB2810.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADFyZw6JrhsLR_eYOeCjjiQMzz5bepk6AfMRBu0hnaQg+vN-=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CADFyZw5-WzdkACN39-ND9tvBwmvfdEhFaYL3Ds82a3Rwav-neA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CADFyZw579_W96dD_beduHeCFomVg1Xe8P+Kpi6jq3Z8+GsYVjw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>

Nice!

Pleased that the general idea worked well for you!

I'm also relieved that you did not follow my recommendation exactly - 
I'm been trialling a Samsung 960 Evo (256GB) and Intel 600p (256GB) and 
I've stumbled across the serious disadvantages of (consumer) M.2 drives 
using TLC NAND - terrible sustained write performance! While these guys 
can happily do ~ 2GB/s reads, their write performance is only 'burst 
capable'. They have small SLC NAND 'write caches' that do  ~1GB/s for a 
*limited time* (10-20s) and after that you get ~ 200 MB/s! Ouch - my old 
Crucial 550 can do 350 MB/s sustained writes (so two of them in RAID0 
are doing 700 MB/s for hours).

Bigger capacity drives can do better - but overall I'm not that 
impressed with the current trend of using TLC NAND.

regards

Mark


On 21/07/17 00:50, Charles Nadeau wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I received yesterday a second server having 16 drives bays. Just for a 
> quick trial, I used 2 old 60GB SSD (a Kingston V300 and a ADATA SP900) 
> to build a RAID0. To my surprise, my very pecky RAID controller (HP 
> P410i) recognised them without a fuss (although as SATAII drives at 
> 3Gb/s. A quick fio benchmark gives me 22000 random 4k read IOPS, more 
> than my 5 146GB 10k SAS disks in RAID0). I moved my most frequently 
> used index to this array and will try to do some benchmarks.
> Knowing that SSDs based on SandForce-2281 controller are recognised by 
> my server, I may buy a pair of bigger/newer ones to put my tables on.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Charles
>
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Mark Kirkwood 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Thinking about this a bit more - if somewhat more blazing
>     performance is needed, then this could be achieved via losing the
>     RAID card and spinning disks altogether and buying 1 of the NVME
>     or SATA solid state products: e.g
>
>     - Samsung 960 Pro or Evo 2 TB (approx 1 or 2 GB/s seq scan speeds
>     and 200K IOPS)
>
>     - Intel S3610 or similar 1.2 TB (500 MB/s seq scan and 30K IOPS)
>
>
>     The Samsung needs an M.2 port on the mobo (but most should have
>     'em - and if not PCIe X4 adapter cards are quite cheap). The Intel
>     is a bit more expensive compared to the Samsung, and is slower but
>     has a longer lifetime. However for your workload the Sammy is
>     probably fine.
>
>     regards
>
>     Mark
>
>     On 15/07/17 11:09, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>         Ah yes - that seems more sensible (but still slower than I
>         would expect for 5 disks RAID 0).
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
>     ([email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>)
>     To make changes to your subscription:
>     http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>     <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance;
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Charles Nadeau Ph.D.
> http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/



-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox