[cut]
>> TPS including connection establishing, pgbench run in a single
>> thread mode, connection made through unix socket, OS cache dropped
>> and Postgres restarted for every run.
>>
>> those are the results:
>>
>> HT HT SYSFS DIS HT BIOS DISABLE
>> -c -t r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 r3
>> 5 20K 1641 1831 1496 2020 1974 2033 2005 1988 1967
>> 10 10K 2161 2134 2136 2277 2252 2216 1854 1824 1810
>> 20 5k 2550 2508 2558 2417 2388 2357 1924 1928 1954
>> 30 3333 2216 2272 2250 2333 2493 2496 1993 2009 2008
>> 40 2.5K 2179 2221 2250 2568 2535 2500 2025 2048 2018
>> 50 2K 2217 2213 2213 2487 2449 2604 2112 2016 2023
>>
>> Despite the fact the results don't match my expectation
>
> You have a RAID1 with 15K SAS disks. I have a RAID10 with 8 7200 SATA
> disks plus another RAID1 for the XLOG file system. Ten 7K SATA disks
> on two file systems should be quite a bit faster than two 15K SAS
> disks, right?
I think you're right. But I never have the chance to try such
a configuration in first person. But, yes, spreading I/O on two
different subsystems (xlog and pgdata) and having pgdata on
a RAID10 should surely outperform my RAID1 with 15K SAS disks.
>> (I suspect that there's something wrong with the PERC
>> because, having the controller cache enabled make no
>> difference in terms of TPS), it seems strange that disabling
>> HT from the bios will give lesser TPS that HT disable through
>> sysfs interface.
>
> Well, all I can say is that I like my 3WARE controllers, and it's the
> secondary reason why I moved away from Dell (the primary reason is
> price).
Something I surely will take into account the next time
I will buy a new server.
Andrea
