Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and - Mailing list pgsql-performance
| From | Steve Poe |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | 721b21dc0608181039x28012fednbeba47c5c4511661@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
|
| List | pgsql-performance |
Luke,
Nope. it is only a RAID1 for the 2 internal discs connected to the SmartArray 6i. This is where I *had* the pg_xlog located when the performance was very poor. Also, I just found out the default stripe size is 128k. Would this be a problem for pg_xlog?
The 6-disc RAID10 you speak of is on the SmartArray 642 RAID adapter.
Steve
Nope. it is only a RAID1 for the 2 internal discs connected to the SmartArray 6i. This is where I *had* the pg_xlog located when the performance was very poor. Also, I just found out the default stripe size is 128k. Would this be a problem for pg_xlog?
The 6-disc RAID10 you speak of is on the SmartArray 642 RAID adapter.
Steve
On 8/18/06, Luke Lonergan < llonergan@greenplum.com> wrote:
Steve,
If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great.
Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe it's 6
disks in a RAID10?
- Luke
On 8/16/06 7:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <steve.poe@gmail.com > wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is
> connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am
> not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs:
>
> scsi disc
> array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> scsi disc
> array ,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6, 579.9,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++
> scsi disc
> array ,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++,
> +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+
>
> This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs
> formatted at ext2.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote:
>>>>> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from
>>>>> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well.
>>>>
>>>> If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate
>>>> partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog).
>>>
>>> If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP
>>> performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster
>>> CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration.
>>>
>>> Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O
>>> wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver
>>> therein.
>>
>> I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller.
>>
>> Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with?
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
pgsql-performance by date: