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

Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

From: "Steve Poe" <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Alex Turner" <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
Date: 2006-08-08 15:01:47
Message-ID: 721b21dc0608080801l5fb6534ey7094774ff79a323b@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Luke,

Thanks for the feedback.  I use the same database test that I've run a Sun
dual Opteron with 4Gb RAM and (2) four disk arrays in RAID10. The sun box
with one disc on an LSI MegaRAID 2-channel adapter outperforms this HP box.
I though I was doing something wrong or there is something wrong with the
box.

Steve

On 8/8/06, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I agree, I think these say you are getting 240MB/s sequential reads and
> 1000 seeks per second.
>
> That's pretty much the best you'd expect.
>
> - Luke
>
> Sent from my GoodLink synchronized handheld (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com]
> Sent:   Tuesday, August 08, 2006 02:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:     steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com
> Cc:     Luke Lonergan; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject:        Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
>
> These number are pretty darn good for a four disk RAID 10, pretty close to
> perfect infact.  Nice advert for the 642 - I guess we have a Hardware RAID
> controller than will read indpendently from mirrors.
>
> Alex
>
> On 8/8/06, Steve Poe <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Luke,
> >
> > Here are the results of two runs of 16GB file tests on XFS.
> >
> > scsi disc array
> > xfs ,16G,81024,99,153016,24,73422,10,82092,97,243210,17,1043.1
> > ,0,16,3172,7,+++++,+++,2957,9,3197,10,+++++,+++,2484,8
> > scsi disc array
> > xfs ,16G,83320,99,155641,25,73662,10,81756,96,243352,18,1029.1
> > ,0,16,3119,10,+++++,+++,2789,7,3263,11,+++++,+++,2014,6
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > > Can you run bonnie++ version 1.03a on the machine and report the
> results
> > > here?
> > >
> > > It could be OK if you have the latest Linux driver for cciss, someone
> > has
> > > reported good results to this list with the latest, bleeding edge
> > version of
> > > Linux (2.6.17).
> > >
> > > - Luke
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> > >        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> > >        match
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> >                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> >
>
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-08-08 16:22:15
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-08-08 14:36:15
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

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