Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++ - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++
Date
Msg-id 4E4C2FEB.5060301@2ndQuadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++  (Ogden <lists@darkstatic.com>)
Responses Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++
Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++
List pgsql-performance
On 08/17/2011 02:26 PM, Ogden wrote:
> I am using bonnie++ to benchmark our current Postgres system (on RAID
> 5) with the new one we have, which I have configured with RAID 10. The
> drives are the same (SAS 15K). I tried the new system with ext3 and
> then XFS but the results seem really outrageous as compared to the
> current system, or am I reading things wrong?
>
> The benchmark results are here:
> http://malekkoheavyindustry.com/benchmark.html

Congratulations--you're now qualified to be a member of the "RAID5
sucks" club.  You can find other members at
http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html  Reasonable read speeds and
just terrible write ones are expected if that's on your old hardware.
Your new results are what I would expect from the hardware you've
described.

The only thing that looks weird are your ext4 "Sequential Output -
Block" results.  They should be between the ext3 and the XFS results,
not far lower than either.  Normally this only comes from using a bad
set of mount options.  With a battery-backed write cache, you'd want to
use "nobarrier" for example; if you didn't do that, that can crush
output rates.

--
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg@2ndQuadrant.com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support  www.2ndQuadrant.us


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Need to tune for Heavy Write
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Calculating statistic via function rather than with query is slowing my query