Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> in an ideal world this would be 5*120=600 tps.
> Have you any good any ideas what holds it back for the other 300 tps ?
Well, recall that the CPU usage was about 20% in the single-client test.
(The reason I needed a variant version of pgbench is that this machine
is too slow to do more than 120 TPC-B transactions per second anyway.)
That says that the best possible throughput on this test scenario is 5
transactions per disk rotation --- the CPU is just not capable of doing
more. I am actually getting about 4 xact/rotation for 10 or more
clients (in fact it seems to reach that plateau at 8 clients, and be
close to it at 7). I'm inclined to think that the fact that it's 4 not
5 is just a matter of "not quite there" --- there's some additional CPU
overhead due to lock contention, etc, and any slowdown at all will cause
it to miss making 5. The 20% CPU figure was approximate to begin with,
anyway.
The other interesting question is why we're not able to saturate the
machine with only 4 or 5 clients. I think pgbench itself is probably
to blame for that: it can't keep all its backend threads constantly
busy ... especially not when several of them report back transaction
completion at essentially the same instant, as will happen under
ganged-commit conditions. There will be intervals where multiple
backends are waiting for pgbench to send a new command. That delay
in starting a new command cycle is probably enough for them to "miss the
bus" of getting included in the next commit write.
That's just a guess though; I don't have tools that would let me see
exactly what's happening. Anyone else want to reproduce the test on
a different system and see what it does?
> If it has CPU utilisation of only 50% then there must be still some
> moderate lock contention.
No, that's I/O wait I think, forced by the quantization of the number
of transactions that get committed per rotation.
> btw, what is the number for 1-5-10 clients with fsync off ?
About 640 tps at 1 and 5, trailing off to 615 at 10, and down to 450
at 100 clients (now that must be lock contention...)
regards, tom lane
