Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig

Hello.

Unfortunately, I'm leaving for my vacation now, gone 3 weeks. When I'm back
I'll run benchmarksql and bonnie++ and give the results here.

The spec I will be using:

Prolite DL585
2 x AMD/Opteron 64-bit 2,6GHZ
8G DDR PC3200
4 x 150G SCSI in SmartArray 5i
Running Gentoo 2006.0 AMD_64 Hardened kernel

Then I will remove the SmartArray 5i, and use a simple nonRAID SCSI
controller and implement Linux software RAID, and re-run the tests.

I'll give signal in 3 weeks

- Kjell Tore.

On 7/28/06, Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)wirelesscar(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Luke,
>
> Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results
> from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's
> bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual
> core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems
> (EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that
> machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It
> would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to
> benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout.
>
> /Mikael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com]
> Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17
> To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk;
> pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
>
> 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
>
>
>

--
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."