Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1ybxvfEfnKMXWhK_idKF7bsA+LL7PqPAxEYy5kyx0Dvzw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
On 07/11/2017 04:15 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Charles Nadeau
<charles.nadeau@gmail.com> wrote:
I’m running PostgreSQL 9.6.3 on Ubuntu 16.10 (kernel 4.4.0-85-generic).
Hardware is:

*2x Intel Xeon E5550

*72GB RAM

*Hardware RAID10 (4 x 146GB SAS 10k) P410i controller with 1GB FBWC (80%
read/20% write) for Postgresql data only:

The problem I have is very poor read. When I benchmark my array with fio I
get random reads of about 200MB/s and 1100IOPS and sequential reads of about
286MB/s and 21000IPS. But when I watch my queries using pg_activity, I get
at best 4MB/s. Also using dstat I can see that iowait time is at about 25%.
This problem is not query-dependent.

Stop right there.     1100 iops * 8kb = ~8mb/sec raw which might
reasonably translate to 4mb/sec to the client. 200mb/sec random
read/sec on spinning media is simply not plausible;

Sure it is, if he had more than 4 disks ;)

Or more to the point here, if each random read is 4MB long.  Which makes it more like sequential reads, randomly-piecewise, rather than random reads. 
 
but he also isn't going to get 1100 IOPS from 4 10k disks. The average 10k disk is going to get around 130 IOPS . If he only has 4 then there is no way he is getting 1100 IOPS.

I wouldn't be sure.  He is using an iodepth of 256 in his benchmark.  It wouldn't be all that outrageous for a disk to be able to find 3 or 4 sectors per revolution it can read, when it has that many to choose from.

 Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent
Next
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Very poor read performance, query independent