Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
Date
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.64.0803131151430.24943@westnet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10  (Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>)
Responses Re: Benchmark: Dell/Perc 6, 8 disk RAID 10
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Craig James wrote:

>> wal_sync_method = open_sync

There was a bug report I haven't had a chance to investigate yet that
suggested some recent Linux versions have issues when using open_sync.
I'd suggest popping that back to the default for now unless you have time
to really do a long certification process that your system runs reliably
with it turned on.

I suspect most of the improvement you saw from Joshua's recommendations
was from raising checkpoint_segments.

> $ pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -v test -U test
> scaling factor: 1
> number of clients: 10

A scaling factor of 1 means you are operating on a positively trivial 16MB
database.  It also means there's exactly one entry in a table that every
client updates on every transactions.  You have 10 clients, and they're
all fighting over access to it.

If you actually want something that approaches useful numbers here, you
need to at run 'pgbench -i -s 10' to get a scaling factor of 10 and a
160MB database.  Interesting results on this class of hardware are when
you set scaling to 100 or more (100=1.6GB database).  See
http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/content/postgresql/pgbench-scaling.htm for
some examples of how that works, from a less powerful system than yours.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Guillaume Smet"
Date:
Subject: Re: Recomendations on raid controllers raid 1+0
Next
From: Glyn Astill
Date:
Subject: Re: Recomendations on raid controllers raid 1+0