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.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
