Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

That's about what I was getting for a 2 disk RAID 0 setup on a PE 2950.
Here's bonnie++ numbers for the RAID10x4 and RAID0x2, unfortunately I
only have the 1.93 numbers since this was before I got the advice to run
with the earlier version of bonnie and larger file sizes, so I don't
know how meaningful they are.

RAID 10x4
bash-2.05b$ bonnie++ -d bonnie -s 1000:8k
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
Concurrency 1 -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
1000M 585 99 21705 4 28560 9 1004 99 812997 98 5436
454
Latency 14181us 81364us 50256us 57720us 1671us
1059ms
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
c -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 4712 10 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 4674 10 +++++ +++
+++++ +++
Latency 807ms 21us 36us 804ms 110us
36us
1.93c,1.93c,
,1,1155207445,1000M,,585,99,21705,4,28560,9,1004,99,812997,98,5436,454,1
6,,,,,4712,10,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4674,10,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,14181us,81
364us,50256us,57720us,1671us,1059ms,807ms,21us,36us,804ms,110us,36us
bash-2.05b$

RAID 0x2
bash-2.05b$ bonnie++ -d bonnie -s 1000:8k
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-
--Random-
Concurrency 1 -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
1000M 575 99 131621 25 104178 26 1004 99 816928 99 6233
521
Latency 14436us 26663us 47478us 54796us 1487us
38924us
Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
Create--------
-Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete--
files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP
/sec %CP
16 4935 10 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 5198 11 +++++ +++
+++++ +++
Latency 738ms 32us 43us 777ms 24us
30us
1.93c,1.93c,beast.corp.lumeta.com,1,1155210203,1000M,,575,99,131621,25,1
04178,26,1004,99,816928,99,6233,521,16,,,,,4935,10,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,5
198,11,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,14436us,26663us,47478us,54796us,1487us,38924u
s,738ms,32us,43us,777ms,24us,30us

A RAID 5 configuration seems to outperform this on the PE 2950 though
(at least in terms of raw read/write perf)

If anyone's interested in some more detailed tests of the 2950, I might
be able to reconfigure the raid for some tests next week before I start
setting up the box for long term use, so I'm open to suggestions. See
earlier posts in this thread for details about the hardware.

Thanks,

Bucky

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Luke
Lonergan
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:38 AM
To: steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com; Scott Marlowe
Cc: Michael Stone; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

Steve,

If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great.

Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe
it's 6
disks in a RAID10?

- Luke

On 8/16/06 7:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Everyone,
>
> I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which
is
> connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I
am
> not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs:
>
> scsi disc
> array
,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> scsi disc
> array
,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6,579.9,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> scsi disc
> array
,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+
>
> This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs
> formatted at ext2.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
>>>>> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went
from
>>>>> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
>>>>
>>>> If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
>>>> partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).
>>>
>>> If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP
>>> performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and
having faster
>>> CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration.
>>>
>>> Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP
is I/O
>>> wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the
driver
>>> therein.
>>
>> I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
>>
>> Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that
your
>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend