On 02/04/13 19:08, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Monday, April 1, 2013, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>
> Your provisioned volumes are much better than the default AWS ones,
> but are still not hugely fast (i.e 1000 IOPS is about 8 MB/s worth
> of Postgres 8k buffers). So you may need to look at adding more
> volumes into the array, or adding some separate ones and putting
> pg_xlog directory on 'em.
>
> However before making changes I would recommend using iostat or sar
> to monitor how volumes are handling the load (I usually choose a 1
> sec granularity and look for 100% util and high - server hundred ms
> - awaits). Also iotop could be enlightening.
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Do you have experience using these tools with AWS? When using non-DAS
> in other contexts, I've noticed that these tools often give deranged
> results, because the kernel doesn't correctly know what time to
> attribute to "network" and what to attribute to "disk". But I haven't
> looked into it on AWS EBS, maybe they do a better job there.
> Thanks for any insight,
>
Hi Jeff,
That is a very good point. I did notice a reasonable amount of network
traffic on the graphs posted previously, along with a suspiciously low
amount of IO for md127 (which I assume is the raid0 array)...and
wondered if iostat was not seeing IO fully, however it slipped my mind
(I am on leave with kittens - so claim that for the purrrfect excuse)!
However I don't recall there being a problem with the io tools for
standard EBS volumes - but I haven't benchmarked AWS for a over a year,
so things could be different now - and I have no experience with these
new provisioned volumes.
Armand - it might be instructive to do some benchmarking (with another
host and volume set) where you do something like:
$ dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=8k count=1000000
and see if iostat and friends actually show you doing IO as expected!
