Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: serveRAID M5014 SAS

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: serveRAID M5014 SAS
Date: 2011-05-26 22:43:25
Message-ID: 4DDED78D.6060508@catalyst.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 26/05/11 20:31, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
> Would HT have any impact to the I/O performance (postgresql, and fs in
> general) ?.
>

There have been previous discussions on this list about HT on vs off (I 
can't recall what the consensus, if any about what the cause of any 
performance difference was). In our case HT off gave us much better 
results for what we think the typical number of clients will be  - see 
attached (server learn-db1 is setup with trivial hardware raid and then 
software raided via md, learn-db2 has its raid all in hardware. We've 
ended up going with the latter setup).

Note that the highest tps on the graph is about 2100 - we got this upto 
just over 2300 by changing from ext4 to xfs in later tests, and managed 
to push the tps for 100 clients up a little by setting no read ahead 
(NORA) for the arrays.

Cheers

Mark

Attachment: runhton.png
Description: image/png (14.0 KB) (inlined above)
Attachment: runhtoff.png
Description: image/png (14.5 KB) (inlined above)

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2011-05-26 23:10:19
Subject: Re: The shared buffers challenge
Previous:From: Tory M BlueDate: 2011-05-26 22:34:55
Subject: Performance block size.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group