pgbench results

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

pgbench results

Ivan Voras
Hi,

Has anyone been able to replicate results from
http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/blog/index.php?/archives/21-guid.html, or
get close to the performance described there on similar hardware (e.g.
thousands of transactions/s) ?



signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

alan bryan-4

--- Ivan Voras <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Has anyone been able to replicate results from
>
http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/blog/index.php?/archives/21-guid.html,
> or
> get close to the performance described there on
> similar hardware (e.g.
> thousands of transactions/s) ?
>

Here's mine for a somewhat similar setup.  
FreeBSD 7.0 PostgreSQL 8.3
2x Intel Xeon 2.33GHZ quad cores (8 cores total), 8GB
RAM, 250GB RAID 10 (4x WD Raptor 10K drives).

Non-default settings:

                       
max_connections = 200
shared_buffers = 1900MB
wal_buffers = 1024kB
checkpoint_segments = 192            
checkpoint_timeout = 30min

 

createdb testdb
pgbench -i -s 100 testdb

# pgbench -c 100 -t 100000 testdb
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 100
number of clients: 100
number of transactions per client: 100000
number of transactions actually processed:
10000000/10000000
tps = 1650.806584 (including connections establishing)
tps = 1650.905036 (excluding connections establishing)

So, not as high as his numbers but then I've got less
RAM, one less drive spindle in my array (2 vs. 3 in
performance for the raid 10 setup), SATA vs. SCSI,
he's got 512MB of controller cache vs my 128MB.

--Alan



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Ivan Voras
http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/blog/index.php?/archives/21-guid.html

alan bryan wrote:

> Here's mine for a somewhat similar setup.  
> FreeBSD 7.0 PostgreSQL 8.3
> 2x Intel Xeon 2.33GHZ quad cores (8 cores total), 8GB
> RAM, 250GB RAID 10 (4x WD Raptor 10K drives).
>
> Non-default settings:
>
>                        
> max_connections = 200
> shared_buffers = 1900MB
> wal_buffers = 1024kB
> checkpoint_segments = 192            
> checkpoint_timeout = 30min
>
> createdb testdb
> pgbench -i -s 100 testdb
>
> # pgbench -c 100 -t 100000 testdb
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 100
> number of clients: 100
> number of transactions per client: 100000
> number of transactions actually processed:
> 10000000/10000000
> tps = 1650.806584 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 1650.905036 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> So, not as high as his numbers but then I've got less
> RAM, one less drive spindle in my array (2 vs. 3 in
> performance for the raid 10 setup), SATA vs. SCSI,
> he's got 512MB of controller cache vs my 128MB.
The thing is - I *do* have a similar setup here: HP DL370 G5, 2x4-core
1.86 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 6 drives in RAID10, 512 MB cache (can pull > 200
MB/s off the array), with all settings like in the posted link except
shared_buffer=1900 MB, and I "only" get this:

tps = 2834.026175 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2839.080739 (excluding connections establishing)

This is still far bellow ~~ 4500 trans/s from the link and I wonder if
my results are within what I should be getting. The benchmark in the
link above was done with faster CPUs (but I'm not CPU bound - at least
30% idle), but with 3 times the memory and I'm guessing more memory
would help here, but I'm not sure.

What's strange is that toggling synchronous_commit doesn't have a
significant effect on performance (it does increase CPU idle time). With
synchronous_commit=off, I get:

tps = 2886.980477 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2891.776081 (excluding connections establishing)


signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Mark Kirkwood
Ivan Voras wrote:

>
> The thing is - I *do* have a similar setup here: HP DL370 G5, 2x4-core
> 1.86 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 6 drives in RAID10, 512 MB cache (can pull > 200
> MB/s off the array), with all settings like in the posted link except
> shared_buffer=1900 MB, and I "only" get this:
>
> tps = 2834.026175 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 2839.080739 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> This is still far bellow ~~ 4500 trans/s from the link and I wonder if
> my results are within what I should be getting. The benchmark in the
> link above was done with faster CPUs (but I'm not CPU bound - at least
> 30% idle), but with 3 times the memory and I'm guessing more memory
> would help here, but I'm not sure.
>
> What's strange is that toggling synchronous_commit doesn't have a
> significant effect on performance (it does increase CPU idle time). With
> synchronous_commit=off, I get:
>
> tps = 2886.980477 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 2891.776081 (excluding connections establishing)
>
>  

The article refers to a controller with a battery backed write cache -
that could easily explain the difference if you do not have one (he's
paying nothing for fsync wheres you are).

regards

Mark
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Mark Kirkwood
Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> Ivan Voras wrote:
>>
>> The thing is - I *do* have a similar setup here: HP DL370 G5, 2x4-core
>> 1.86 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 6 drives in RAID10, 512 MB cache (can pull > 200
>> MB/s off the array), with all settings like in the posted link except
>> shared_buffer=1900 MB, and I "only" get this:
>>
>> tps = 2834.026175 (including connections establishing)
>> tps = 2839.080739 (excluding connections establishing)
>>
>> This is still far bellow ~~ 4500 trans/s from the link and I wonder if
>> my results are within what I should be getting. The benchmark in the
>> link above was done with faster CPUs (but I'm not CPU bound - at least
>> 30% idle), but with 3 times the memory and I'm guessing more memory
>> would help here, but I'm not sure.
>>
>> What's strange is that toggling synchronous_commit doesn't have a
>> significant effect on performance (it does increase CPU idle time). With
>> synchronous_commit=off, I get:
>>
>> tps = 2886.980477 (including connections establishing)
>> tps = 2891.776081 (excluding connections establishing)
>>
>>  
>
> The article refers to a controller with a battery backed write cache -
> that could easily explain the difference if you do not have one (he's
> paying nothing for fsync wheres you are).
>

Hmm - somehow read right past the bit where you say you have a 512MB
cache - sorry! However, worth checking it is set to write-back rather
than write-through.

Cheers

Mark
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Ivan Voras
On 12/03/2008, Mark Kirkwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hmm - somehow read right past the bit where you say you have a 512MB
>  cache - sorry! However, worth checking it is set to write-back rather
>  than write-through.

As far as I can see it is set to write-through (though the HP's array
configuration utility isn't explicit about it, everything
performance-wise than can be turned on is turned on, including write
cache).
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Jeff Roberson

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:

> On 12/03/2008, Mark Kirkwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm - somehow read right past the bit where you say you have a 512MB
>>  cache - sorry! However, worth checking it is set to write-back rather
>>  than write-through.
>
> As far as I can see it is set to write-through (though the HP's array
> configuration utility isn't explicit about it, everything
> performance-wise than can be turned on is turned on, including write
> cache).

What kernel are you running?

> _______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Ivan Voras
On 13/03/2008, Jeff Roberson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>  On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>  > On 12/03/2008, Mark Kirkwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >
>  >> Hmm - somehow read right past the bit where you say you have a 512MB
>  >>  cache - sorry! However, worth checking it is set to write-back rather
>  >>  than write-through.
>  >
>  > As far as I can see it is set to write-through (though the HP's array
>  > configuration utility isn't explicit about it, everything
>  > performance-wise than can be turned on is turned on, including write
>  > cache).
>
> What kernel are you running?

7-STABLE since Feb 29, amd64+ULE.
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: pgbench results

Ivan Voras
In reply to this post by Ivan Voras
Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 12/03/2008, Mark Kirkwood <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hmm - somehow read right past the bit where you say you have a 512MB
>>  cache - sorry! However, worth checking it is set to write-back rather
>>  than write-through.
>
> As far as I can see it is set to write-through (though the HP's array

Sorry, this should be "it is NOT set to write-through"

> configuration utility isn't explicit about it, everything
> performance-wise than can be turned on is turned on, including write
> cache).



signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment