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

Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig

From: Charles Sprickman <spork(at)bway(dot)net>
To: Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Kjell Tore Fossbakk <kjelltore(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
Date: 2006-07-29 05:57:19
Message-ID: Pine.OSX.4.61.0607290153401.10025@white.nat.fasttrackmonkey.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Mikael Carneholm wrote:

> Luke,
>
> Yeah, I read those results, and I'm very disappointed with my results
> from the MSA1500. I would however be interested in other people's
> bonnie++ and benchmarksql results using a similar machine (2 cpu dual
> core opteron) with other "off the shelf" storage systems
> (EMC/Netapp/Xyratex/../). Could you run benchmarksql against that
> machine with the 16 SATA disk and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters? It
> would be *very* interesting to see how the I/O performance correlates to
> benchmarksql (postgres) transaction throughout.

FWIW, once our vendor gets all the pieces (having some issues with 
figuring out which multilane sata cables to get), I'll have a dual-core 
opteron box with a 3Ware 9500SX-12MI and 8 drives.  I need to benchmark to 
compare this to our xeon/adaptec/scsi build we've been using.

I've also got a 1U with a 9500SX-4 and 4 drives.  I like how the 3Ware 
card scales there - started with 2 drives and got "drive speed" mirroring. 
Added two more and most of the bonnie numbers doubled.  This is not what 
I'm used to with the Adaptec SCSI junk.

These SATA RAID controllers 3Ware is making seem to be leaps and bounds 
beyond what the "old guard" is churning out (at much higher prices).

Charles

> /Mikael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Lonergan [mailto:LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com]
> Sent: den 28 juli 2006 11:17
> To: Mikael Carneholm; Kjell Tore Fossbakk;
> pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
>
> Mikael,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mikael Carneholm [mailto:Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)WirelessCar(dot)com]
>> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 2:05 AM
>>
>> My bonnie++ results are found in this message:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-07/msg00164.php
>>
>
> Apologies if I've already said this, but those bonnie++ results are very
> disappointing.  The sequential transfer rates between 20MB/s and 57MB/s
> are slower than a single SATA disk, and your SCSI disks might even do
> 80MB/s sequential transfer rate each.
>
> Random access is also very poor, though perhaps equal to 5 disk drives
> at 500/second.
>
> By comparison, we routinely get 950MB/s sequential transfer rate using
> 16 SATA disks and 3Ware 9550SX SATA RAID adapters on Linux.
>
> On Solaris ZFS on an X4500, we recently got this bonnie++ result on 36
> SATA disk drives in RAID10 (single thread first):
>
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------    --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
>                    -Per Chr-  --Block--  -Rewrite-  -Per Chr-
> --Block--  --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec
> %CP /sec %CP
> thumperdw-i-1   32G 120453  99 467814  98 290391  58 109371  99 993344
> 94 1801   4
>                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
>                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
>              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
>                 16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 30850  99 +++++ +++
> +++++ +++
>
> Bumping up the number of concurrent processes to 2, we get about 1.5x
> speed reads of RAID10 with a concurrent workload (you have to add the
> rates together):
>
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------   --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
>                    -Per Chr- --Block--  -Rewrite-  -Per Chr-  --Block--
> --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec
> %CP  /sec %CP
> thumperdw-i-1   32G 111441  95 212536  54 171798  51 106184  98 719472
> 88  1233   2
>                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
>                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
>              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
>                 16 26085  90 +++++ +++  5700  98 21448  97 +++++ +++
> 4381  97
>
> Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------   --Sequential Input-
> --Random-
>                    -Per Chr-  --Block--  -Rewrite-  -Per Chr-
> --Block--   --Seeks--
> Machine        Size K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec  %CP K/sec
> %CP  /sec %CP
> thumperdw-i-1   32G 116355  99 212509  54 171647  50 106112  98 715030
> 87  1274   3
>                    ------Sequential Create------ --------Random
> Create--------
>                    -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---
> -Delete--
>              files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP
> /sec %CP
>                 16 26082  99 +++++ +++  5588  98 21399  88 +++++ +++
> 4272  97
>
> So that's 2500 seeks per second, 1440MB/s sequential block read, 212MB/s
> per character sequential read.
>
> - Luke
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2006-07-29 06:06:27
Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-07-28 21:06:55
Subject: Re: index usage

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