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

Re: Performance on Sun Fire X4150 x64 (dd, bonnie++, pgbench)

From: Stephane Bailliez <sbailliez(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance on Sun Fire X4150 x64 (dd, bonnie++, pgbench)
Date: 2008-07-21 10:11:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Greg Smith wrote:
> Note that I've had some issues with the desktop Ubuntu giving slower 
> results in tests like this than the same kernel release using the 
> stock kernel parameters.  Haven't had a chance yet to see how the 
> server Ubuntu kernel fits into that or exactly what the desktop one is 
> doing wrong yet. Could be worse--if you were running any 8.04 I expect 
> your pgbench results would be downright awful.

Ah interesting. Isn't it a scheduler problem, I thought CFQ was the 
default for desktop ?
I doublechecked the 7.10 server on this box and it's really the deadline 
one that is used:

cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler
noop anticipatory [deadline] cfq

Do you have some more pointers on the 8.04 issues you mentioned ? 
(that's deemed to be the next upgrade from ops)

>> postgresql 8.2.9 with data and xlog as mentioned above
> There are so many known performance issues in 8.2 that are improved in 
> 8.3 that I'd suggest you really should be considering it for a new 
> install at this point.

Yes I'd definitely prefer to go 8.3 as well but there are a couple 
reasons for now I have to suck it up:
- 8.2 is the one in the 7.10 repository.
- I need plr as well and 8.3-plr debian package does not exist yet.

(I know in both cases we could recompile and install it from there, but ...)

> In general, you'll want to use a couple of clients per CPU core for 
> pgbench tests to get a true look at the scalability.  Unfortunately, 
> the way the pgbench client runs means that it tends to top out at 20 
> or 30 thousand TPS on read-only tests no matter how many cores you 
> have around. But you may find operations where peak throughput comes 
> at closer to 32 clients here rather than just 8.
ok. Make sense.

> As far as the rest of your results go, Luke's comment that you may 
> need more than one process to truly see the upper limit of your disk 
> performance is right on target.  More useful commentary on that issue 
> I'd recomend is near the end of 
Yeah I was looking at that url as well. Very useful.

Thanks for all the info Greg.

-- stephane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Andreas HartmannDate: 2008-07-21 10:50:42
Subject: Less rows -> better performance?
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2008-07-21 08:57:52
Subject: Re: Performance on Sun Fire X4150 x64 (dd, bonnie++, pgbench)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group