On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 10:03 +0200, Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Jeffrey W. Baker <jwbaker@acm.org> wrote:
> > [reposted due to delivery error -jwb]
> >
> > I just took delivery of a new system, and used the opportunity to
> > benchmark postgresql 8.0 performance on various filesystems. The system
> > in question runs Linux 2.6.12, has one CPU and 1GB of system memory, and
> > 5 7200RPM SATA disks attached to an Areca hardware RAID controller
> > having 128MB of cache. The caches are all write-back.
> >
> > I ran pgbench with a scale factor of 1000 and a total of 100,000
> > transactions per run. I varied the number of clients between 10 and
> > 100. It appears from my test JFS is much faster than both ext3 and XFS
> > for this workload. JFS and XFS were made with the mkfs defaults. ext3
> > was made with -T largefile4 and -E stride=32. The deadline scheduler
> > was used for all runs (anticipatory scheduler is much worse).
> >
> > Here's the result, in transactions per second.
> >
> > ext3 jfs xfs
> > -----------------------------
> > 10 Clients 55 81 68
> > 100 Clients 61 100 64
> > ----------------------------
>
> If you still have a chance, could you do tests with other journaling
> options for ext3 (journal=writeback, journal=data)? And could you
> give figures about performace of other IO elevators? I mean, you
> wrote that anticipatory is much wore -- how much worse? :) Could
> you give numbers for deadline,anticipatory,cfq elevators? :)
>
> And, additionally would it be possible to give numbers for bonnie++
> results? To see how does pgbench to bonnie++ relate?
Phew, that's a lot of permutations. At 20-30 minutes per run, I'm
thinking 5-8 hours or so. Still, for you dear readers, I'll somehow
accomplish this tedious feat.
As for Bonnie, JFS is a good 60-80% faster than ext3. See my message to
ext3-users yesterday.
Using bonnie++ with a 10GB fileset, in MB/s:
ext3 jfs xfs
Read 112 188 141
Write 97 157 167
Rewrite 51 71 60
-jwb
