Re: extremly low memory usage - Mailing list pgsql-performance

On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 21:32 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > At 02:53 PM 8/20/2005, Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 16:03 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
> >> > Jeremiah Jahn wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:18 -0500, John A Meinel wrote:
> >> > >
> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> > > it's cached alright. I'm getting a read rate of about 150MB/sec. I
> >> would
> >> > > have thought is would be faster with my raid setup. I think I'm
> >> going to
> >> > > scrap the whole thing and get rid of LVM. I'll just do a straight
> >> ext3
> >> > > system. Maybe that will help. Still trying to get suggestions for a
> >> > > stripe size.
> >> > >
>
> Well, since you can get a read of the RAID at 150MB/s, that means that
> it is actual I/O speed. It may not be cached in RAM. Perhaps you could
> try the same test, only using say 1G, which should be cached.

[root@io pgsql]# time dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1024 count=1000000
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out

real    0m8.885s
user    0m0.299s
sys     0m6.998s
[root@io pgsql]# time dd of=/dev/null if=testfile bs=1024 count=1000000
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out

real    0m1.654s
user    0m0.232s
sys     0m1.415s


>
> >> >
> >> > I don't think 150MB/s is out of the realm for a 14 drive array.
> >> > How fast is time dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=8192 count=1000000
> >> >
> >> time dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=8192 count=1000000
> >> 1000000+0 records in
> >> 1000000+0 records out
> >>
> >> real    1m24.248s
> >> user    0m0.381s
> >> sys     0m33.028s
> >>
> >>
> >> > (That should create a 8GB file, which is too big to cache everything)
> >> > And then how fast is:
> >> > time dd if=testfile of=/dev/null bs=8192 count=1000000
> >>
> >> time dd if=testfile of=/dev/null bs=8192 count=1000000
> >> 1000000+0 records in
> >> 1000000+0 records out
> >>
> >> real    0m54.139s
> >> user    0m0.326s
> >> sys     0m8.916s
> >>
> >>
> >> and on a second run:
> >>
> >> real    0m55.667s
> >> user    0m0.341s
> >> sys     0m9.013s
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > That should give you a semi-decent way of measuring how fast the RAID
> >> > system is, since it should be too big to cache in ram.
> >>
> >> about 150MB/Sec. Is there no better way to make this go faster...?
>
> I'm actually curious about PCI bus saturation at this point. Old 32-bit
> 33MHz pci could only push 1Gbit = 100MB/s. Now, I'm guessing that this
> is a higher performance system. But I'm really surprised that your write
> speed is that close to your read speed. (100MB/s write, 150MB/s read).

The raid array I have is currently set up to use a single channel. But I
have dual controllers In the array. And dual external slots on the card.
The machine is brand new and has pci-e backplane.



>
> >
> > Assuming these are U320 15Krpm 147GB HDs, a RAID 10 array of 14 of them
> > doing raw sequential IO like this should be capable of at
> >  ~7*75MB/s= 525MB/s using Seagate Cheetah 15K.4's,  ~7*79MB/s= 553MB/s
BTW I'm using Seagate Cheetah 15K.4's

> > if using Fujitsu MAU's, and ~7*86MB/s= 602MB/s if using Maxtor Atlas 15K
> > II's to devices external to the RAID array.
>
> I know I thought these were SATA drives, over 2 controllers. I could be
> completely wrong, though.
>
> >
> > _IF_ the controller setup is high powered enough to keep that kind of IO
> > rate up.  This will require a controller or controllers providing dual
> > channel U320 bandwidth externally and quad channel U320 bandwidth
> > internally.  IOW, it needs a controller or controllers talking 64b
> > 133MHz PCI-X, reasonably fast DSP/CPU units, and probably a decent sized
> > IO buffer as well.
> >
> > AFAICT, the Dell PERC4 controllers use various flavors of the LSI Logic
> > MegaRAID controllers.  What I don't know is which exact one yours is,
> > nor do I know if it (or any of the MegaRAID controllers) are high
> > powered enough.

PERC4eDC-PCI Express, 128MB Cache, 2-External Channels

> >
> > Talk to your HW supplier to make sure you have controllers adequate to
> > your HD's.
> >
> > ...and yes, your average access time will be in the 5.5ms - 6ms range
> > when doing a physical seek.
> > Even with RAID, you want to minimize seeks and maximize sequential IO
> > when accessing them.
> > Best to not go to HD at all ;-)
>
> Well, certainly, if you can get more into RAM, you're always better off.
> For writing, a battery-backed write cache, and for reading lots of
> system RAM.

I'm not really worried about the writing, it's the reading the reading
that needs to be faster.

>
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Ron Peacetree
> >
>
> John
> =:->
--
Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword.