Re: strange performance regression between 7.4 and 8.1 - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Alex Deucher |
---|---|
Subject | Re: strange performance regression between 7.4 and 8.1 |
Date | |
Msg-id | a728f9f90703011806j27234114oecf477ad2d627ee8@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: strange performance regression between 7.4 and 8.1 (Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>) |
List | pgsql-performance |
On 3/1/07, Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > On 3/1/07, Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Alex Deucher wrote: > >> > >> >> >> Postgresql might be choosing a bad plan because your > >> >> effective_cache_size > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> way off (it's the default now right?). Also, what was the block > >> >> read/write > >> >> > > >> >> > yes it's set to the default. > >> >> > > >> >> >> speed of the SAN from your bonnie tests? Probably want to tune > >> >> >> random_page_cost as well if it's also at the default. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > >> >> > --Random- > >> >> > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > >> >> > --Seeks-- > >> >> > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > >> >> /sec > >> >> > %CP > >> >> > luna12-san 16000M 58896 91 62931 9 35870 5 54869 82 145504 13 > >> >> 397.7 > >> >> > 0 > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> So, you're getting 62MB/s writes and 145MB/s reads. Just FYI, that > >> write > >> >> speed is about the same as my single SATA drive write speed on my > >> >> workstation, > >> >> so not that great. The read speed is decent, though and with that sort > >> of > >> >> read performance, you might want to lower random_page_cost to something > >> >> like > >> >> 2.5 or 2 so the planner will tend to prefer index scans. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Right, but the old box was getting ~45MBps on both reads and writes, > >> > so it's an improvement for me :) Thanks for the advice, I'll let you > >> > know how it goes. > >> > >> Do you think that is because you have a different interface between you and > >> the SAN? ~45MBps is pretty slow - your average 7200RPM ATA133 drive can do > >> that and costs quite a bit less than a SAN. > >> > >> Is the SAN being shared between the database servers and other servers? > >> Maybe > >> it was just random timing that gave you the poor write performance on the > >> old > >> server which might be also yielding occassional poor performance on the new > >> one. > >> > > > > The direct attached scsi discs on the old database server we getting > > 45MBps not the SAN. The SAN got 62/145Mbps, which is not as bad. We > > have 4 servers on the SAN each with it's own 4 GBps FC link via an FC > > switch. I'll try and re-run the numbers when the servers are idle > > this weekend. > > Sorry, I thought the old server was also attached to the SAN. My fault for > not hanging onto the entire email thread. > > I think you're mixing and matching your capitol and lower case Bs in your > sentence above though. :-) whoops :) > > I suspect what you really mean is The SAN got 62/145MBps (megabytes/sec) and > teh FC link is 4Gbps (gigabits/sec) or 500MBps. Is that correct? If so, and > seeing that you think there are 105 spindles on the SAN, I'd say you're either > maxxing out the switch fabric of the SAN with your servers or you have a > really poorly performing SAN in general, or you just misunderstood the . > > As a comparison With 8 WD Raptors configured in a RAID10 with normal ext3 I > get about 160MB/s write and 305MB/s read performance. Hopefully the SAN has > lots of other super nifty features that make up for the poor performance. :-( > It's big and reliable (and compared to lots of others, relatively inexpensive) which is why we bought it. We bought it mostly as a huge file store. The RAID groups on the SAN were set up for maximum capacity rather than for performance. Using it for the databases just came up recently. Alex
pgsql-performance by date: