From: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikael Carneholm" <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>, "Kjell Tore Fossbakk" <kjelltore(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig |
Date: | 2006-07-28 09:16:47 |
Message-ID: | 3E37B936B592014B978C4415F90D662D03E6CA59@MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mikael,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
>
> My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
>
Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
disappointing. The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.
Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
at 500/second.
By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.
On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):
Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr-
--Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec
%CP /sec %CP
thumperdw-i-1 32G 120453 99 467814 98 290391 58 109371 99 993344
94 1801 4
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850 99 +++++ +++
+++++ +++
Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
rates together):
Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--
--Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec
%CP /sec %CP
thumperdw-i-1 32G 111441 95 212536 54 171798 51 106184 98 719472
88 1233 2
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 26085 90 +++++ +++ 5700 98 21448 97 +++++ +++
4381 97
Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr-
--Block-- --Seeks--
Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec
%CP /sec %CP
thumperdw-i-1 32G 116355 99 212509 54 171647 50 106112 98 715030
87 1274 3
------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
-Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 26082 99 +++++ +++ 5588 98 21399 88 +++++ +++
4272 97
So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
per character sequential read.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikael Carneholm | 2006-07-28 09:55:25 | Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-07-28 08:53:15 | Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig |