Re: Are we in the ballpark? - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Wayne Conrad |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Are we in the ballpark? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 4D498F2D.2030501@databill.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Are we in the ballpark? (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Are we in the ballpark?
|
List | pgsql-performance |
Greg, It's so nice to get a reply from the author of *the book*. Thank you for taking the time to help us out. On 02/01/11 18:30, Greg Smith wrote: > Do you not want any excitement in your life? I've had database excitement enough to last a lifetime. That's why I'm mending my ways. Your book is the first step of our 12 step program. > 8.4.7 is current; there are a lot of useful fixes to be had. See if you > can get a newer Debian package installed before you go live with this. I'll look for 8.4.7, but we'll be switching to 9 before too long. >> File system: XFS (nobarrier, noatime) > > Should probably add "logbufs=8" in there too. Will do. >> work_mem = 192MB >> wal_buffers = 8MB >> random_page_cost = 1.0 > > That work_mem is a bit on the scary side of things, given how much > memory is allocated to other things. Just be careful you don't get a lot > of connections and run out of server RAM. That's a leftover from the days when we *really* didn't know what we're doing (now we only *mostly* don't know what we're doing). I'll set work_mem down to something less scary. > Might as well bump wal_buffers up to 16MB and be done with it. Will do. > Setting random_page_cost to 1.0 is essentially telling the server the > entire database is cached in RAM. If that's not true, you don't want to > go quite that far in reducing it. Oops, that was a typo. We've set random_page_cost to 2, not 1. > With 8.4, you should be able to keep constraint_exclusion at its default > of 'partition' and have that work as expected; any particular reason you > forced it to always be 'on'? See "we really didn't know what we were doing." We'll leave constraint_exclusion at its default. >> Bonnie++ (-f -n 0 -c 4) >> $PGDATA/xlog (RAID1) >> random seek: 369/sec >> block out: 87 MB/sec >> block in: 180 MB/sec >> $PGDATA (RAID10, 12 drives) >> random seek: 452 >> block out: 439 MB/sec >> block in: 881 MB/sec >> >> sysbench test of fsync (commit) rate: >> >> $PGDATA/xlog (RAID1) >> cache off: 29 req/sec >> cache on: 9,342 req/sec >> $PGDATA (RAID10, 12 drives) >> cache off: 61 req/sec >> cache on: 8,191 req/sec > > That random seek rate is a little low for 12 drives, but that's probably > the limitations of the 3ware controller kicking in there. Your "cache > off" figures are really weird though; I'd expect those both to be around > 100. Makes me wonder if something weird is happening in the controller, > or if there was a problem with your config when testing that. Not a big > deal, really--the cached numbers are normally going to be the important > ones--but it is odd. I also thought the "cache off" figures were odd. I expected something much closer to 120 req/sec (7200 rpm drives). I probably won't investigate that with any vigor, since the cache-on numbers are OK. > Your pgbench SELECT numbers look fine, but particularly given that > commit oddity here I'd recommend running some of the standard TPC-B-like > tests, too, just to be completely sure there's no problem here. You > should get results that look like "Set 3: Longer ext3 tests" in the set > I've published to http://www.2ndquadrant.us/pgbench-results/index.htm > presuming you let those run for 10 minutes or so. The server those came > off of has less RAM and disks than yours, so you'll fit larger database > scales into memory before performance falls off, but that gives you > something to compare against. TCB-B-like tests, will do. Greg, Thanks a million. Wayne Conrad
pgsql-performance by date: