Thread: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and SmartArray 642

I am do some consulting for an animal hospital in the Boston, MA area.
They wanted a new server to run their database on. The client wants
everything from one vendor, they wanted Dell initially, I'd advised
against it. I recommended a dual Opteron system from either Sun or HP.
They settled on a DL385 8GB of RAM with two disc U320 SCSI and a 6-disc
U320 SCSI array. I recommended they add a RAID adapter with at 128MB and
battery backup, they added a HP SmartArray 642 to connect to the drive
array in addition to the SmartArray 6i which came with the server.

Has anyone worked with server before. I've read the SmartArray 6i is a
poor performer, I wonder if the SmartArray 642 adapter would have the
same fate?

The database data is on the drive array(RAID10) and the pg_xlog is on
the internal RAID1 on the 6i controller. The results have been poor.

My guess is the controllers are garbage.

Thanks for any advice.

Steve Poe

Steve,

On 8/5/06 4:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <steve.poe@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am do some consulting for an animal hospital in the Boston, MA area.
> They wanted a new server to run their database on. The client wants
> everything from one vendor, they wanted Dell initially, I'd advised
> against it. I recommended a dual Opteron system from either Sun or HP.
> They settled on a DL385 8GB of RAM with two disc U320 SCSI and a 6-disc
> U320 SCSI array. I recommended they add a RAID adapter with at 128MB and
> battery backup, they added a HP SmartArray 642 to connect to the drive
> array in addition to the SmartArray 6i which came with the server.
>
> Has anyone worked with server before. I've read the SmartArray 6i is a
> poor performer, I wonder if the SmartArray 642 adapter would have the
> same fate?
>
> The database data is on the drive array(RAID10) and the pg_xlog is on
> the internal RAID1 on the 6i controller. The results have been poor.
>
> My guess is the controllers are garbage.

Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results
here?

It could be OK if you have the latest Linux driver for cciss, someone has
reported good results to this list with the latest, bleeding edge version of
Linux (2.6.17).

- Luke

Luke,

I'll do that then post the results. I ran zcav on it (default settlings) on the disc array formatted XFS and its peak MB/s was around 85-90.  I am using kernel 2.6.17.7. mounting the disc array with noatime, nodiratime.

Thanks for your feedback.

Steve

>> The database data is on the drive array(RAID10) and the pg_xlog is on
>> the internal RAID1 on the 6i controller. The results have been poor.

I have heard that the 6i was actually decent but to avoid the 5i.

Joshua D. Drake


>>
>> My guess is the controllers are garbage.
>
> Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results
> here?
>
> It could be OK if you have the latest Linux driver for cciss, someone has
> reported good results to this list with the latest, bleeding edge version of
> Linux (2.6.17).
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match
>


--

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

There is 64MB on the 6i and 192MB on the 642 controller. I wish the controllers had a "wrieback" enable option like the LSI MegaRAID adapters have. I have tried splitting the cache accelerator 25/75 75/25 0/100 100/0 but the results really did not improve.

Steve

Luke,

Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS.

scsi disc array
xfs ,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1,0,16,3172,7,+++++,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+++++,+++,2484,8
scsi disc array
xfs ,16G,83320,99,155641,25,73662,10,81756,96,243352,18,1029.1,0,16,3119,10,+++++,+++,2789,7,3263,11,+++++,+++,2014,6

Thanks.

Steve



> Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results
> here?
>
> It could be OK if you have the latest Linux driver for cciss, someone has
> reported good results to this list with the latest, bleeding edge version of
> Linux (2.6.17).
>
> - Luke
>


>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match

These number are pretty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close to perfect infact.  Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAID controller than will read indpendently from mirrors.

Alex

On Aug 5, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
>
> Has anyone worked with server before. I've read the SmartArray 6i is a
> poor performer, I wonder if the SmartArray 642 adapter would have the
> same fate?
>

My newest db is a DL385, 6 disks.  It runs very nicely. I have no
issues with the 6i controller.
If you look in the pgsql-performance archives a week or two ago
you'll see a similar thread to
this one - in fact, it is also about a dl385 (but he had a 5i
controller)

--
Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com>
http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/

Alex,

Maybe I mis-stated, this is a 6-disk array.

Steve

Hi,

> Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the results
> here?

Do you know if the figures from bonnie++ are able to measure the
performance related to the overhead of the 'fsync' option? I had
very strange performance differences between two Dell 1850
machines months ago, and raw performance (hdparm, not bonnie++)
was similar, the only figure I could find with a significant
difference able to explain the issue was the "await" compound
reported by "iostat" - but I was still very much in the dark :/

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-03/msg00407.php

--
Guillaume Cottenceau
Create your personal SMS or WAP Service - visit http://mobilefriends.ch/

> There is 64MB on the 6i and 192MB on the 642 controller. I wish the
> controllers had a "wrieback" enable option like the LSI MegaRAID
> adapters have. I have tried splitting the cache accelerator 25/75
> 75/25 0/100 100/0 but the results really did not improve.

They have a writeback option, but you can't enable it unless you buy the
battery-pack for the controller. I believe it's enabled by default once
you get the BBWC.

//Magnus