On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 5:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman <asifr.rehman@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were done to simulate > > a live database environment using pgbench. > > > > machine configuration used for this test: > > Instance Type: t2.xlarge > > Volume Type : io1 > > Memory (MiB) : 16384 > > vCPU # : 4 > > Architecture : X86_64 > > IOP : 16000 > > Database Size (GB) : 102 > > > > The setup consist of 3 machines. > > - one for database instances > > - one for pg_basebackup client and > > - one for pgbench with some parallel workers, simulating SELECT loads. > > > > basebackup | 4 workers | 8 Workers | 16 workers > > Backup Duration(Min): 69.25 | 20.44 | 19.86 | 20.15 > > (pgbench running with 50 parallel client simulating SELECT load) > > > > Backup Duration(Min): 154.75 | 49.28 | 45.27 | 20.35 > > (pgbench running with 100 parallel client simulating SELECT load) > > > > Thanks for sharing the results, these show nice speedup! However, I > think we should try to find what exactly causes this speed up. If you > see the recent discussion on another thread related to this topic, > Andres, pointed out that he doesn't think that we can gain much by > having multiple connections[1]. It might be due to some internal > limitations (like small buffers) [2] due to which we are seeing these > speedups. It might help if you can share the perf reports of the > server-side and pg_basebackup side. >
Just to be clear, we need perf reports both with and without patch-set.
These tests were done a while back, I think it would be good to run the benchmark again with the latest patches of parallel backup and share the results and perf reports.
