Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Craig James
Subject Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
Date
Msg-id 47D9402A.3050903@emolecules.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
List pgsql-performance
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:55:18 -0700
> Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Diffs from original configuration:
>>
>> max_connections = 1000
>> shared_buffers = 400MB
>> work_mem = 256MB
>> max_fsm_pages = 1000000
>> max_fsm_relations = 5000
>> wal_buffers = 256kB
>> effective_cache_size = 4GB
>
> I didn't see which OS but I assume linux. I didn't see postgresql so I
> assume 8.3.

Right on both counts.

> wal_sync_method = open_sync
> checkpoint_segments = 30
> shared_buffers = 2000MB
> asyncrhonous_commit = off (sp?)
>
> Try again.

Nice improvement!  About 25% increase in TPS:

$ pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -v test -U test
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
tps = 3423.636423 (including connections establishing)
tps = 3425.957521 (excluding connections establishing)

For reference, here are the results before your suggested changes:

$ pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -v test -U test
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
tps = 2786.377933 (including connections establishing)
tps = 2787.888209 (excluding connections establishing)

Thanks!
Craig

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Craig James
Date:
Subject: Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
Next
From: "Guillaume Smet"
Date:
Subject: Re: Recomendations on raid controllers raid 1+0