Thread: How to get higher tps
I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following parameters shared_buffers fsync max_fsm_pages max_connections shared_buffers work_mem max_fsm_pages effective_cache_size random_page_cost I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench Here is our hardware Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz 6GB RAM Linux 2.4 kernel RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 With PostgreSql 8.1.4 We don't have i/o bottle neck. Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps over 1500, it is hard to believe. Thanks Marty
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:45 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> parameters
>
> shared_buffers
> fsync
By "tuning" fsync, what do you mean? Did you turn it off?
If you turned fsync off, that could compromise your data in case of any
kind of crash or power failure. However, if you turn fsync off you
should much higher TPS on pgbench than you're getting.
> Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> 6GB RAM
> Linux 2.4 kernel
> RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
Does your disk controller have battery-backed writeback cache? How much?
> With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>
> We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
Well, chances are PostgreSQL is waiting for fsync, which means you do
have an I/O bottleneck (however, you're not using all of your I/O
bandwidth, most likely).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Not much we can do unless you give us more info about how you're testing (pgbench setup), and what you've done with the parameters you listed below. It would also be useful if you told us more about your drive array than just "3Par". We need to know the RAID level, number/speed of disks, whether it's got a battery-backed write cache that's turned on, things like this. Like Jeff just said, it's likely that you're waiting for rotational latency, which would limit your maximum tps for sequential jobs based on the number of disks in your array. For example, a 2-disk array of 10k RPM disks is going to max out somewhere around 333 tps. (2*10000/60). -- Mark Lewis On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:45 -0400, Marty Jia wrote: > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following > parameters > > shared_buffers > fsync > max_fsm_pages > max_connections > shared_buffers > work_mem > max_fsm_pages > effective_cache_size > random_page_cost > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench > > Here is our hardware > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz > 6GB RAM > Linux 2.4 kernel > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > > We don't have i/o bottle neck. > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps > over 1500, it is hard to believe. > > Thanks > > Marty > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Jeff,
Thanks for your response, I did turn the fsync off, no performance
improvement.
Since the application is a network monring program, data is not critical
for us.
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Davis [mailto:pgsql@j-davis.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 5:23 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:45 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> parameters
>
> shared_buffers
> fsync
By "tuning" fsync, what do you mean? Did you turn it off?
If you turned fsync off, that could compromise your data in case of any
kind of crash or power failure. However, if you turn fsync off you
should much higher TPS on pgbench than you're getting.
> Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> 6GB RAM
> Linux 2.4 kernel
> RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
Does your disk controller have battery-backed writeback cache? How much?
> With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>
> We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
Well, chances are PostgreSQL is waiting for fsync, which means you do
have an I/O bottleneck (however, you're not using all of your I/O
bandwidth, most likely).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Marty Jia wrote:
> I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> parameters
>
> shared_buffers
> fsync
> max_fsm_pages
> max_connections
> shared_buffers
> work_mem
> max_fsm_pages
> effective_cache_size
> random_page_cost
>
> I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
> higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
What values did you use?
>
> Here is our hardware
>
>
> Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> 6GB RAM
> Linux 2.4 kernel
> RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
>
> With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>
> We don't have i/o bottle neck.
Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
you passing to pgbench?
Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
> over 1500, it is hard to believe.
1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== 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/
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 15:45, Marty Jia wrote: > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following > parameters > > shared_buffers > fsync > max_fsm_pages > max_connections > shared_buffers > work_mem > max_fsm_pages > effective_cache_size > random_page_cost > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench > > Here is our hardware > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz > 6GB RAM > Linux 2.4 kernel > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4 I assume this is on a blade server then? Just guessing. I'd suspect your vscsi drivers if that's the case. Look into getting the latest drivers for your hardware platform and your scsi/vscsi etc... drivers. If you're connecting through a fibrechannel card make sure you've got the latest drivers for that as well. 1500, btw, is quite high. Most fast machines I've dealt with were hitting 600 to 800 tps on fairly good sized RAID arrays. You may be able to put your pg_xlog on a sep partition / set of spindles and get some perf gain. Also look into how your drives are configured. The more drives you can throw into a RAID 10 the better. RAID 5 will usually never give as good of write performance as RAID 10, although it gets better as the number of drives increases.
Hi, Mark Thanks, here is our hardware info: RAID 10, using 3Par virtual volume technology across ~200 physical FC disks. 4 virtual disks for PGDATA, striped with LVM into one volume, 2 virtual disks for WAL, also striped. SAN attached with Qlogic SAN surfer multipathing to load balance each LUN on two 2GBs paths. HBAs are Qlogic 2340's. 16GB host cache on 3Par. Detailed major config values shared_buffers = 80000 fsync = on max_fsm_pages = 350000 max_connections = 1000 work_mem = 65536 effective_cache_size = 610000 random_page_cost = 3 Marty -----Original Message----- From: Mark Lewis [mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 5:47 PM To: Marty Jia Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps Not much we can do unless you give us more info about how you're testing (pgbench setup), and what you've done with the parameters you listed below. It would also be useful if you told us more about your drive array than just "3Par". We need to know the RAID level, number/speed of disks, whether it's got a battery-backed write cache that's turned on, things like this. Like Jeff just said, it's likely that you're waiting for rotational latency, which would limit your maximum tps for sequential jobs based on the number of disks in your array. For example, a 2-disk array of 10k RPM disks is going to max out somewhere around 333 tps. (2*10000/60). -- Mark Lewis On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 16:45 -0400, Marty Jia wrote: > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following > parameters > > shared_buffers > fsync > max_fsm_pages > max_connections > shared_buffers > work_mem > max_fsm_pages > effective_cache_size > random_page_cost > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench > > Here is our hardware > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz > 6GB RAM > Linux 2.4 kernel > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > > We don't have i/o bottle neck. > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps > over 1500, it is hard to believe. > > Thanks > > Marty > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Joshua,
Here is
shared_buffers = 80000
fsync = on
max_fsm_pages = 350000
max_connections = 1000
work_mem = 65536
effective_cache_size = 610000
random_page_cost = 3
Here is pgbench I used:
pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
Thanks
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty Jia wrote:
> I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> parameters
>
> shared_buffers
> fsync
> max_fsm_pages
> max_connections
> shared_buffers
> work_mem
> max_fsm_pages
> effective_cache_size
> random_page_cost
>
> I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
> higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
What values did you use?
>
> Here is our hardware
>
>
> Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> 6GB RAM
> Linux 2.4 kernel
> RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
>
> With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>
> We don't have i/o bottle neck.
Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
you passing to pgbench?
Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
> over 1500, it is hard to believe.
1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
=== 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/
Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the interactions are. Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all? -- Mark On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote: > Joshua, > > Here is > > shared_buffers = 80000 > fsync = on > max_fsm_pages = 350000 > max_connections = 1000 > work_mem = 65536 > effective_cache_size = 610000 > random_page_cost = 3 > > Here is pgbench I used: > > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB > > Thanks > > Marty > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM > To: Marty Jia > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps > > Marty Jia wrote: > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following > > parameters > > > > shared_buffers > > fsync > > max_fsm_pages > > max_connections > > shared_buffers > > work_mem > > max_fsm_pages > > effective_cache_size > > random_page_cost > > > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get > > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench > > What values did you use? > > > > > Here is our hardware > > > > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz > > 6GB RAM > > Linux 2.4 kernel > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 > > > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > > > > We don't have i/o bottle neck. > > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are > you passing to pgbench? > > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your > WAL ext2 instead of ext3. > > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps > > > over 1500, it is hard to believe. > > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though. > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Marty > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > >
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 08:16, Marty Jia wrote: > Hi, Mark > > Thanks, here is our hardware info: > > RAID 10, using 3Par virtual volume technology across ~200 physical FC > disks. 4 virtual disks for PGDATA, striped with LVM into one volume, 2 > virtual disks for WAL, also striped. SAN attached with Qlogic SAN > surfer multipathing to load balance each LUN on two 2GBs paths. HBAs > are Qlogic 2340's. 16GB host cache on 3Par. A few points. Someone (Luke I think) posted that Linux's LVM has a throughput limit of around 600 Megs/second. Why are you using multiple virtual disks on an LPAR? Did you try this with just a single big virtual disk first to have something to compare it to? I think your disk subsystem is overthought for an LPAR. If you were running physical disks on a locally attached RAID card, it would be a good idea. But here you're just adding layers of complexity for no gain, and in fact may be heading backwards. I'd make two volumes on the LPAR, and let the LPAR do all the virtualization for you. Put a couple disks in a mirror set for the pg_xlog, format it ext2, and mount it noatime. Make another from a dozen or so disks in an RAID 0 on top of RAID 1 (i.e. make a bunch of mirror sets and stripe them into one big partition) and mount that for PGDATA. Simplify, and get a baseline. Then, start mucking about to see if you can get better performance. change ONE THING at a time, and only one thing, and test it well. Got the latest and greatest drivers for the qlogic cards? I would suggest some component testing to make sure everything is working well. bonnie++ and dd come to mind.
First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.
Alex.
When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.
Alex.
On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com> wrote:
Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
interactions are.
Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?
-- Mark
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound. Check top or vmstat to get an idea of that
Alex
Alex
On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.
Alex.On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com> wrote:Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
interactions are.
Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?
-- Mark
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
The scaling factor is 20 I used -v and 2>/dev/null, now I got tps = 389.796376 (excluding connections establishing) This is best so far I can get Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Mark Lewis [mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:32 AM To: Marty Jia Cc: Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs; Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the interactions are. Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all? -- Mark On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote: > Joshua, > > Here is > > shared_buffers = 80000 > fsync = on > max_fsm_pages = 350000 > max_connections = 1000 > work_mem = 65536 > effective_cache_size = 610000 > random_page_cost = 3 > > Here is pgbench I used: > > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB > > Thanks > > Marty > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com] > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM > To: Marty Jia > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps > > Marty Jia wrote: > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following > > parameters > > > > shared_buffers > > fsync > > max_fsm_pages > > max_connections > > shared_buffers > > work_mem > > max_fsm_pages > > effective_cache_size > > random_page_cost > > > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not > > get > > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench > > What values did you use? > > > > > Here is our hardware > > > > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz > > 6GB RAM > > Linux 2.4 kernel > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 > > > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > > > > We don't have i/o bottle neck. > > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters > are you passing to pgbench? > > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making > your WAL ext2 instead of ext3. > > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get > > tps > > > over 1500, it is hard to believe. > > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though. > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Marty > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > >
----------- Here is vmstat
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
0 1 15416 18156 73372 4348488 1 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 2
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
0 1 15416 18156 73372 4348488 1 1 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 2
----------- Here is iostat
avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
11.59 0.00 6.13 10.77 71.50
11.59 0.00 6.13 10.77 71.50
Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
sda 2.76 6.88 36.35 16036474 84688320
sda1 0.00 0.01 0.00 30100 1056
sda2 0.27 2.36 1.72 5509296 4017224
sda3 1.85 0.78 21.99 1819850 51242800
sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0
sda5 0.15 0.49 1.47 1131624 3425672
sda6 0.49 3.14 11.12 7320616 25899088
sda7 0.01 0.09 0.04 219960 102480
sdb 2.75 6.78 36.35 15803532 84688320
sdb1 0.00 0.01 0.00 24322 1056
sdb2 0.27 2.31 1.72 5391682 4017224
sdb3 1.84 0.79 21.99 1836088 51242800
sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0
sdb5 0.15 0.49 1.47 1134546 3425672
sdb6 0.49 3.12 11.12 7273816 25899088
sdb7 0.01 0.06 0.04 138138 102480
sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 632 0
sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0
sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0
sdi 139.89 680.59 839.42 1585722266 1955771032
sdj 139.72 680.21 835.90 1584829368 1947590800
sdk 139.82 680.30 840.74 1585053608 1958864880
sdl 139.86 680.56 841.26 1585657408 1960079576
sdm 54.80 6.67 891.38 15547618 2076836720
sdn 54.71 6.66 891.35 15509096 2076776352
sda 2.76 6.88 36.35 16036474 84688320
sda1 0.00 0.01 0.00 30100 1056
sda2 0.27 2.36 1.72 5509296 4017224
sda3 1.85 0.78 21.99 1819850 51242800
sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0
sda5 0.15 0.49 1.47 1131624 3425672
sda6 0.49 3.14 11.12 7320616 25899088
sda7 0.01 0.09 0.04 219960 102480
sdb 2.75 6.78 36.35 15803532 84688320
sdb1 0.00 0.01 0.00 24322 1056
sdb2 0.27 2.31 1.72 5391682 4017224
sdb3 1.84 0.79 21.99 1836088 51242800
sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0
sdb5 0.15 0.49 1.47 1134546 3425672
sdb6 0.49 3.12 11.12 7273816 25899088
sdb7 0.01 0.06 0.04 138138 102480
sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 632 0
sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0
sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0
sdi 139.89 680.59 839.42 1585722266 1955771032
sdj 139.72 680.21 835.90 1584829368 1947590800
sdk 139.82 680.30 840.74 1585053608 1958864880
sdl 139.86 680.56 841.26 1585657408 1960079576
sdm 54.80 6.67 891.38 15547618 2076836720
sdn 54.71 6.66 891.35 15509096 2076776352
From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
To: Mark Lewis
Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs; Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Alex
On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.
Alex.On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com> wrote:Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
interactions are.
Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?
-- Mark
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Here is iostat when running pgbench:
avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
To: Mark Lewis
Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs; Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Alex
On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.
Alex.On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com> wrote:Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
interactions are.
Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?
-- Mark
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
At 04:45 PM 8/21/2006, Marty Jia wrote: >I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following >parameters > >shared_buffers >fsync >max_fsm_pages >max_connections >shared_buffers >work_mem >max_fsm_pages >effective_cache_size >random_page_cost All of this comes =after= the Get the Correct HW (1) & OS (2) steps. You are putting the cart before the horse. >I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get >higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench 300tps on what HW? and under what pattern of IO load? 300tps of OLTP on a small number of non-Raptor 10K rpm HD's may actually be decent performance. 300tps on a 24 HD RAID 10 based on Raptors or 15Krpm HDs and working through a HW RAID controller w/ >= 1GB of BB cache is likely to be poor. >Here is our hardware > > >Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz >6GB RAM Modest CPU and RAM for a DB server now-a-days. In particular, the more DB you can keep in RAM the better. And you have said nothing about the most importance HW when talking about tps: What Does Your HD Subsystem Look Like? . >Linux 2.4 kernel >RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 Upgrade to a 2.6 based kernel and examine your RHEL-AS3 install with a close eye to trimming the fat you do not need from it. Cent-OS ot Ca-Os may be better distro choices. >200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 >50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 Put WAL on ext2. Experiment with ext3, jfs, reiserfs, and XFS for pgdata. Take a =close= look at the exact HW specs of your 3par.to make sure that you are not attempting the impossible with that HW. "3par" is marketing fluff. We need HD specs and RAID subsystem config data. >With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > >We don't have i/o bottle neck. Prove it. Where are the numbers that back up your assertion and how did you get them? >Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps >over 1500, it is hard to believe. Did they claim your exact HW could get 1500tps? Your exact HW+OS+pg version+app SW? Some subset of those 4 variables? Performance claims are easy to make. =Valid= performance claims are tougher since they have to be much more constrained and descriptive. Ron
Ron Here is our hardware Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz 6GB RAM Linux 2.4 kernel RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 RAID 10, using 3Par virtual volume technology across ~200 physical FC disks. 4 virtual disks for PGDATA, striped with LVM into one volume, 2 virtual disks for WAL, also striped. SAN attached with Qlogic SAN surfer multipathing to load balance each LUN on two 2GBs paths. HBAs are Qlogic 2340's. 16GB host cache on 3Par. shared_buffers = 80000 max_fsm_pages = 350000 max_connections = 1000 work_mem = 65536 effective_cache_size = 610000 random_page_cost = 3 Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Ron [mailto:rjpeace@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:47 AM To: Marty Jia Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps At 04:45 PM 8/21/2006, Marty Jia wrote: >I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following >parameters > >shared_buffers >fsync >max_fsm_pages >max_connections >shared_buffers >work_mem >max_fsm_pages >effective_cache_size >random_page_cost All of this comes =after= the Get the Correct HW (1) & OS (2) steps. You are putting the cart before the horse. >I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get >higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench 300tps on what HW? and under what pattern of IO load? 300tps of OLTP on a small number of non-Raptor 10K rpm HD's may actually be decent performance. 300tps on a 24 HD RAID 10 based on Raptors or 15Krpm HDs and working through a HW RAID controller w/ >= 1GB of BB cache is likely to be poor. >Here is our hardware > > >Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz >6GB RAM Modest CPU and RAM for a DB server now-a-days. In particular, the more DB you can keep in RAM the better. And you have said nothing about the most importance HW when talking about tps: What Does Your HD Subsystem Look Like? . >Linux 2.4 kernel >RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3 Upgrade to a 2.6 based kernel and examine your RHEL-AS3 install with a close eye to trimming the fat you do not need from it. Cent-OS ot Ca-Os may be better distro choices. >200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3 >50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3 Put WAL on ext2. Experiment with ext3, jfs, reiserfs, and XFS for pgdata. Take a =close= look at the exact HW specs of your 3par.to make sure that you are not attempting the impossible with that HW. "3par" is marketing fluff. We need HD specs and RAID subsystem config data. >With PostgreSql 8.1.4 > >We don't have i/o bottle neck. Prove it. Where are the numbers that back up your assertion and how did you get them? >Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps >over 1500, it is hard to believe. Did they claim your exact HW could get 1500tps? Your exact HW+OS+pg version+app SW? Some subset of those 4 variables? Performance claims are easy to make. =Valid= performance claims are tougher since they have to be much more constrained and descriptive. Ron
Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound. Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
> numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
> say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
> gnome-terminal, my pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
> performance to no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
> throw away all the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
> all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
> factor did you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
> performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
> like following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
> I just can not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
> well as making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
> can should get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
> 470tps or so on my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
> cleanly
>
>
>
>
>
--
=== 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/
Marty,
Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:
pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
`transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 20
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
tps = 561.056729 (including connections establishing)
tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections establishing)
Here's some iostat samples during the test:
tty mfid0 da0 cd0
cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in
id
6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
2 87
8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
4 43
5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
2 75
6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
3 56
1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
3 65
Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.
Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?
I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM speeds,
since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)? Although,
for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since subsequent
runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not believable
(i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back runs). So, as
long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it should be a
realistic test, right?
Thanks,
Bucky
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
> numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
> say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
> gnome-terminal, my pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
> performance to no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
> throw away all the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
> all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
> factor did you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
> performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
> like following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
> I just can not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
> well as making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
> can should get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
> 470tps or so on my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
> cleanly
>
>
>
>
>
--
=== 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/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Bucky
My best result is around 380. I believe your hardware is more efficient,
because no matter how I change the conf parameters, no improvement can
be obtained. I even turned fsync off.
What is your values for the following parameters?
shared_buffers = 80000
max_fsm_pages = 350000
max_connections = 1000
work_mem = 65536
effective_cache_size = 610000
random_page_cost = 3
Thanks
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: Bucky Jordan [mailto:bjordan@lumeta.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake; Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty,
Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:
pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
`transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 20 number of clients:
10 number of transactions per client: 10000 number of transactions
actually processed: 100000/100000 tps = 561.056729 (including
connections establishing) tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections
establishing)
Here's some iostat samples during the test:
tty mfid0 da0 cd0
cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in
id
6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
2 87
8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
4 43
5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
2 75
6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
3 56
1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
3 65
Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.
Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?
I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM speeds,
since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)? Although,
for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since subsequent
runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not believable
(i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back runs). So, as
long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it should be a
realistic test, right?
Thanks,
Bucky
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
numbers.
> That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
gnome-terminal, my
> pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
performance to
> no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
throw away all
> the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
factor did
> you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
like
> following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
I just can
> not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
well as
> making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
can should
> get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
470tps or so on
> my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
cleanly
>
>
>
>
>
--
=== 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/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Marty Jia wrote:
> Bucky
>
> My best result is around 380. I believe your hardware is more efficient,
> because no matter how I change the conf parameters, no improvement can
> be obtained. I even turned fsync off.
Do you stay constant if you use 40 clients versus 20?
>
> What is your values for the following parameters?
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Thanks
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bucky Jordan [mailto:bjordan@lumeta.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:23 PM
> To: Joshua D. Drake; Marty Jia
> Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty,
>
> Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
> on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
> cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
> pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
> `transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 20 number of clients:
> 10 number of transactions per client: 10000 number of transactions
> actually processed: 100000/100000 tps = 561.056729 (including
> connections establishing) tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections
> establishing)
>
> Here's some iostat samples during the test:
> tty mfid0 da0 cd0
> cpu
> tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in
> id
> 6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
> 2 87
> 8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
> 4 43
> 5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
> 2 75
> 6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
> 3 56
> 1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
> 3 65
>
> Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.
>
> Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
> headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
> the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
> appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
> significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?
>
> I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM speeds,
> since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)? Although,
> for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since subsequent
> runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not believable
> (i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back runs). So, as
> long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it should be a
> realistic test, right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bucky
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
> Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
>> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>>
>> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
>> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
>
> You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
> if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
> you are using.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>>
>> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
>> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
>> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
>> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
>> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
>> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
>> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
>> To: Mark Lewis
>> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
> DBAs;
>> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
>> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>>
>>
>> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
> Check
>> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
> numbers.
>> That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
> is
>> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
>
>> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
> do
>> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
> about
>> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
>>
>> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
> say.
>>
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
>> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>>
>> Well, at least on my test machines running
> gnome-terminal, my
>> pgbench
>> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
> performance to
>> no
>> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
> throw away all
>> the
>> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
>> Caveat: in my
>> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
> all the
>> interactions are.
>>
>> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
> factor did
>> you
>> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
> performance at all?
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
>> > Joshua,
>> >
>> > Here is
>> >
>> > shared_buffers = 80000
>> > fsync = on
>> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
>> > max_connections = 1000
>> > work_mem = 65536
>> > effective_cache_size = 610000
>> > random_page_cost = 3
>> >
>> > Here is pgbench I used:
>> >
>> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Marty
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
>> > To: Marty Jia
>> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>> >
>> > Marty Jia wrote:
>> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
> like
>> following
>> > > parameters
>> > >
>> > > shared_buffers
>> > > fsync
>> > > max_fsm_pages
>> > > max_connections
>> > > shared_buffers
>> > > work_mem
>> > > max_fsm_pages
>> > > effective_cache_size
>> > > random_page_cost
>> > >
>> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
> I just can
>> not get
>> >
>> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>> >
>> > What values did you use?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Here is our hardware
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
>> > > 6GB RAM
>> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
>> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
>> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
>> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
>> > >
>> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>> > >
>> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>> >
>> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
>> What parameters are
>> > you passing to pgbench?
>> >
>> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
> well as
>> making your
>> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>> >
>> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
> can should
>> get tps
>> >
>> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>> >
>> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
> 470tps or so on
>> my
>> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>> >
>> > Joshua D. Drake
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > >
>> > > Marty
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------(end of
>> > > broadcast)---------------------------
>> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to
>> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list
> cleanly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
=== 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/
As I mentioned, I haven't changed the defaults at all yet:
Fsync is still on...
shared_buffers = 1000
max_fsm_pages = 20000
max_connections = 40
work_mem = 1024
effective_cache_size = 1000
random_page_cost = 4
I'm not sure how much the dual core woodcrests and faster memory are
helping my system. Your hardware should *theoretically* have better IO
performance, assuming you're actually making use of the 2x2GB/s FC
interfaces and external RAID.
What do you get if you run the bench back-to-back without rebuilding the
test db? (Say pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null run 5 times in
a row)? Maybe that would put more stress on RAM/CPU?
Seems to me your issue is with an underperforming IO subsystem- as
previously mentioned, you might want to check dd and bonnie++ (v 1.03)
numbers.
time bash -c "(dd if=/dev/zero of=bigfile count=125000 bs=8k && sync)"
I get ~255 mb/s from the above.
Bucky
-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Jia [mailto:mjia@ask.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:38 PM
To: Bucky Jordan; Joshua D. Drake
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Bucky
My best result is around 380. I believe your hardware is more efficient,
because no matter how I change the conf parameters, no improvement can
be obtained. I even turned fsync off.
What is your values for the following parameters?
shared_buffers = 80000
max_fsm_pages = 350000
max_connections = 1000
work_mem = 65536
effective_cache_size = 610000
random_page_cost = 3
Thanks
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: Bucky Jordan [mailto:bjordan@lumeta.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake; Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty,
Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:
pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
`transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 20 number of clients:
10 number of transactions per client: 10000 number of transactions
actually processed: 100000/100000 tps = 561.056729 (including
connections establishing) tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections
establishing)
Here's some iostat samples during the test:
tty mfid0 da0 cd0
cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in
id
6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
2 87
8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
4 43
5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
2 75
6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
3 56
1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
3 65
Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.
Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?
I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM speeds,
since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)? Although,
for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since subsequent
runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not believable
(i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back runs). So, as
long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it should be a
realistic test, right?
Thanks,
Bucky
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
numbers.
> That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
gnome-terminal, my
> pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
performance to
> no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
throw away all
> the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
factor did
> you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
like
> following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
I just can
> not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
well as
> making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
can should
> get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
470tps or so on
> my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
cleanly
>
>
>
>
>
--
=== 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/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Here is, it's first time I got tps > 400
10 clients:
[pgsql@prdhqdb2:/pgsql/database]pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -v -d pgbench
2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: pgbench
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
tps = 413.022562 (including connections establishing)
tps = 413.125733 (excluding connections establishing)
20 clients:
[pgsql@prdhqdb2:/pgsql/database]pgbench -c 20 -t 10000 -v -d pgbench
2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 20 nxacts: 10000 dbName: pgbench
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 20
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 200000/200000
tps = 220.759983 (including connections establishing)
tps = 220.790077 (excluding connections establishing)
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:38 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Bucky Jordan; Alex Turner; Mark Lewis;
pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs; Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
Marty Jia wrote:
> Bucky
>
> My best result is around 380. I believe your hardware is more
> efficient, because no matter how I change the conf parameters, no
> improvement can be obtained. I even turned fsync off.
Do you stay constant if you use 40 clients versus 20?
>
> What is your values for the following parameters?
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Thanks
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bucky Jordan [mailto:bjordan@lumeta.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:23 PM
> To: Joshua D. Drake; Marty Jia
> Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty,
>
> Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
> on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
> cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
> pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
> `transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 20 number of
clients:
> 10 number of transactions per client: 10000 number of transactions
> actually processed: 100000/100000 tps = 561.056729 (including
> connections establishing) tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections
> establishing)
>
> Here's some iostat samples during the test:
> tty mfid0 da0 cd0
> cpu
> tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy
in
> id
> 6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
> 2 87
> 8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
> 4 43
> 5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
> 2 75
> 6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
> 3 56
> 1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
> 3 65
>
> Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.
>
> Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
> headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
> the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
> appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
> significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?
>
> I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM
> speeds, since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)?
> Although, for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since
> subsequent runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not
> believable (i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back
> runs). So, as long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it
> should be a realistic test, right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bucky
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
> Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
>> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>>
>> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
>> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42
>
> You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
> if your performance goes down if you increase the number of
> connections you are using.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>>
>> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read
Blk_wrtn
>> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
0
>> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0
1240
>> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0
1184
>> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0
1232
>> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0
1288
>> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0
9360
>> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0
9360
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
>> To: Mark Lewis
>> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
> DBAs;
>> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
>> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>>
>>
>> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
> Check
>> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com>
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
> numbers.
>> That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
> is
>> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We
>> have
>
>> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
> do
>> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
> about
>> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple
connections.
>
>>
>> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
> say.
>>
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
>> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>>
>> Well, at least on my test machines running
> gnome-terminal, my
>> pgbench
>> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
> performance to
>> no
>> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
> throw away all
>> the
>> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
>> Caveat: in my
>> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
> all the
>> interactions are.
>>
>> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
> factor did
>> you
>> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
> performance at all?
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
>> > Joshua,
>> >
>> > Here is
>> >
>> > shared_buffers = 80000
>> > fsync = on
>> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
>> > max_connections = 1000
>> > work_mem = 65536
>> > effective_cache_size = 610000
>> > random_page_cost = 3
>> >
>> > Here is pgbench I used:
>> >
>> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Marty
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
>> > To: Marty Jia
>> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>> >
>> > Marty Jia wrote:
>> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
> like
>> following
>> > > parameters
>> > >
>> > > shared_buffers
>> > > fsync
>> > > max_fsm_pages
>> > > max_connections
>> > > shared_buffers
>> > > work_mem
>> > > max_fsm_pages
>> > > effective_cache_size
>> > > random_page_cost
>> > >
>> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
> I just can
>> not get
>> >
>> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>> >
>> > What values did you use?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Here is our hardware
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
>> > > 6GB RAM
>> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
>> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
>> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
>> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
>> > >
>> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>> > >
>> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>> >
>> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
>> What parameters are
>> > you passing to pgbench?
>> >
>> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
> well as
>> making your
>> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>> >
>> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
> can should
>> get tps
>> >
>> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>> >
>> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
> 470tps or so on
>> my
>> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>> >
>> > Joshua D. Drake
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > >
>> > > Marty
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------(end of
>> > > broadcast)---------------------------
>> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to
>> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list
> cleanly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
=== 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/