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

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

From: "Kjell Tore Fossbakk" <kjelltore(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Mikael Carneholm" <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)wirelesscar(dot)com>
Cc: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig
Date: 2006-07-28 10:38:46
Message-ID: e79986c50607280338t7b94e5c7jaacf4d8c709f581f@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hello.

Unfortunately, I'm leaving for my vacation now, gone 3 weeks. When I'm back
I'll run benchmarksql and bonnie++ and give the results here.

The spec I will be using:

Prolite DL585
2 x AMD/Opteron 64-bit 2,6GHZ
8G DDR PC3200
4 x 150G SCSI in SmartArray 5i
Running Gentoo 2006.0 AMD_64 Hardened kernel

Then I will remove the SmartArray 5i, and use a simple nonRAID SCSI
controller and implement Linux software RAID, and re-run the tests.

I'll give signal in 3 weeks

- Kjell Tore.

On 7/28/06, Mikael Carneholm <Mikael(dot)Carneholm(at)wirelesscar(dot)com> 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.
>
> /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
>
>
>


-- 
"Be nice to people on your way up because you meet them on your way down."

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Claus GuttesenDate: 2006-07-28 12:51:11
Subject: Re: Performance with 2 AMD/Opteron 2.6Ghz and 8gig DDR PC3200
Previous:From: EliottDate: 2006-07-28 10:04:01
Subject: Re: performance issue with a specific query

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