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

Re: Fusion-io ioDrive

From: "Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fusion-io ioDrive
Date: 2008-07-05 06:41:38
Message-ID: fd145f7d0807042341p38cb505dl5140ee27e103d1dc@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I recently got my hands on a device called ioDrive from a company
> called Fusion-io.  The ioDrive is essentially 80GB of flash on a PCI
> card.

[...]

>                            Service Time Percentile, millis
>        R/W TPS   R-O TPS      50th   80th   90th   95th
> RAID      182       673         18     32     42     64
> Fusion    971      4792          8      9     10     11

Essentially the same benchmark, but on a quad Xeon 2GHz with 3GB main
memory, and the scale factor of 300.  Really all we learn from this
exercise is the sheer futility of throwing CPU at PostgreSQL.

R/W TPS: 1168
R-O TPS: 6877

Quadrupling the CPU resources and tripling the RAM results in a 20% or
44% performance increase on read/write and read-only loads,
respectively.  The system loafs along with 2-3 CPUs completely idle,
although oddly iowait is 0%.  I think the system is constrained by
context switch, which is tens of thousands per second.  This is a
problem with the ioDrive software, not with pg.

Someone asked for bonnie++ output:

Block output: 495MB/s, 81% CPU
Block input: 676MB/s, 93% CPU
Block rewrite: 262MB/s, 59% CPU

Pretty respectable.  In the same ballpark as an HP MSA70 + P800 with
25 spindles.

-jwb

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jessica RichardDate: 2008-07-05 11:24:49
Subject: How much work_mem to configure...
Previous:From: Chris BrowneDate: 2008-07-04 16:58:48
Subject: Re: [QUESTION]Concurrent Access

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