On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Sébastien Lorion
<sl@thestrangefactory.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since Amazon has added new high I/O instance types and EBS volumes, anyone
> has done some benchmark of PostgreSQL on them ?
>
> http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/07/20/IOPerformanceNoLongerSucksInTheCloud.aspx
> http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2012/08/01/EBSProvisionedIOPSOptimizedInstanceTypes.aspx
> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2012/08/fast-forward-provisioned-iops-ebs.html
>
> I will be testing my app soon, but was curious to know if others have done
> some tests so I can compare / have a rough idea to what to expect. Looking
> on Google, I found an article about MySQL
> (http://palominodb.com/blog/2012/07/24/palomino-evaluates-amazon%E2%80%99s-new-high-io-ssd-instances),
> but nothing about PostgresSQL.
here's a datapoint, stock config:
pgbench -i -s 500
pgbench -c 16 -T 60
number of transactions actually processed: 418012
tps = 6962.607292 (including connections establishing)
tps = 6973.154593 (excluding connections establishing)
not too shabby. this was run by a friend who is evaluating high i/o
instances for their high load db servers. we didn't have time to
kick off a high scale read only test unfortunately.
Regarding 'AWS vs bare metal', I think high i/o instances full a huge
niche in their lineup. Dollar for dollar, I'm coming around to the
point of view that dealing with aws is a cheaper/more effective
solution than renting out space from a data center or (even worse)
running your own data center unless you're very large or have other
special requirements. Historically the problem with AWS is that you
had no solution for highly transaction bound systems which forced you
to split your environment which ruined most of the benefit, and they
fixed that.
merlin
