On 23 Leden 2012, 18:03, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> 2012/1/22 Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>:
>> I'm working on a benchmark that demonstrates the effects of moving
>> tables or indexes to separate devices (SSD and HDD), and one thing that
>> really caught my eye are spikes in the tps charts. See this:
>> The first one is a database with data on an SSD and indexes on 7.2k HDD.
>> Around 2:00, the performance significantly grows (over 4k tps) and then
>> falls to about 500 tps (which is maintained for the remainder of the
>> I've seen similar spikes on HDD (both data and indexes on the same
>> device) - that's the second chart. The difference is not that huge, but
>> the spike at around 6:00 is noticeable.
>> Interestingly, by separating the data and indexes to two 7.2k drives,
>> the spike disappears - that's the third chart.
>> Any ideas why this happens? Is this a pgbench-only anomaly that does not
>> happen in real-world scenarios?
>> My theory is that it's related to the strategy that chooses what to keep
>> in shared_buffers (or page cache), and that somehow does not work too
>> well in this case.
> ISTM the spike is coming from luck such that all data is read from
> either the SSD or ram. Neither the o/s or pg are smart enough to try
> and push all the buffering over the spinning disk so you are going to
> see some anomalies coming from the reading patterns of the test -- you
> are mainly measuring the %iops that are getting send to data vs index.
Not sure what you mean. Could you describe that a bit more thoroughly?
> I bet if the index and data both were moved to the ssd you'd see no
> pronounced spike just as they are when both are on hdd.
No, the spike is there. It's not as apparent as with the HDD drives, but
both on the same HDD => spike (img. 2)
both on the same SSD => spike
two HDDs => no spike (img. 3)
two SSDs => no spike
data on HDD, index on SSD => no spike
data on SSD, index on HDD => spike (img. 1)
I've realized I haven't set the random_page_cost for the index tablespace
properly, but if that would be the cause it would not affect the "both on
the same HDD" case.
> For huge, high traffic, mostly read workloads that are not cost bound
> on storage, ssd is a no-brainer.
Yes, sure. No doubt about that, unless the workload consists mostly of
huge seq scans ...
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Dave Crooke||Date: 2012-01-24 20:16:19|
|Subject: Can lots of small writes badly hamper reads from other tables?|
|Previous:||From: alexandre - aldeia digital||Date: 2012-01-23 17:26:47|
|Subject: Re: Discovering the most searched values for a field|