Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Thank you for your reply.

<CA+TgmobUrKBWgOa8x=mbW4Cmsb=NeV8Egf+RSLp7XiCAjHdmgw@mail.gmail.com>
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:29:11 -0500Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote :
>> Using pgbench which is a PostgreSQL general benchmark, the postgres server
>> to which the patches is applied is about 5% faster than original server.
>> And using my insert benchmark, it is up to 90% faster than original one.
>> I will describe these details later.
>
>Interesting.  But your insert benchmark looks highly artificial... in
>real life, you would not insert the same long static string 160
>million times.  Or if you did, you would use COPY or INSERT .. SELECT.

I made this benchmark in order to put very heavy WAL I/O load on PMEM.

PMEM is very fast. I ran the micro-benchmark test like fio on PMEM.
This workload involved 8K Bytes-block synchronous sequential writes,
and the total write size was 40G Bytes.

The micro-benchmark result was the following.
Using DAX FS(like fdatasync):             5,559 MB/sec
Using DAX FS and PMDK(like pmem_drain):  13,177 MB/sec

Using pgbench, the postgres server to which my patches were applied was
only 5% faster than the original server.
>> The averages of running pgbench three times are:
>> wal_sync_method=fdatasync:   tps = 43,179
>> wal_sync_method=pmem_drain:  tps = 45,254

While this pgbench was running, the utilization of 8 CPU cores(on which
the postgres server was runnnig) was about 800%, and the throughput of
WAL I/O was about 10 MB/sec. I thought that pgbench was not enough to put
heavy WAL I/O load on PMEM. So I made and ran the WAL I/O intensive test.

Do you know any good WAL I/O intensive benchmarks? DBT2?

<CA+TgmoawGN6Z8PcLKrMrGg99hF0028sFS2a1_VQEMDKcJjQDMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:40:25 -0500Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote :
>> C-5. Running the 2 benchmarks(1. pgbench, 2. my insert benchmark)
>> C-5-1. pgbench
>> # numactl -N 1 pgbench -c 32 -j 8 -T 120 -M prepared [DB_NAME]
>>
>> The averages of running pgbench three times are:
>> wal_sync_method=fdatasync:   tps = 43,179
>> wal_sync_method=pmem_drain:  tps = 45,254
>
>What scale factor was used for this test?
This scale factor was 200.

# numactl -N 0 pgbench -s 200 -i [DB_NAME]


>Was the only non-default configuration setting wal_sync_method?  i.e.
>synchronous_commit=on?  No change to max_wal_size?
No, I used the following parameter in postgresql.conf to prevent
checkpoints from occurring while running the tests.

# - Settings -
wal_level = replica
fsync = on
synchronous_commit = on
wal_sync_method = pmem_drain
full_page_writes = on
wal_compression = off

# - Checkpoints -
checkpoint_timeout = 1d
max_wal_size = 20GB
min_wal_size = 20GB

>This seems like an exceedingly short test -- normally, for write
>tests, I recommend the median of 3 30-minute runs.  It also seems
>likely to be client-bound, because of the fact that jobs = clients/4.
>Normally I use jobs = clients or at least jobs = clients/2.
>

Thank you for your kind proposal. I did that.

# numactl -N 0 pgbench -s 200 -i [DB_NAME]
# numactl -N 1 pgbench -c 32 -j 32 -T 1800 -M prepared [DB_NAME]

The averages of running pgbench three times are:
wal_sync_method=fdatasync:   tps = 39,966
wal_sync_method=pmem_drain:  tps = 41,365


--
Yoshimi Ichiyanagi