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

Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and

From: "Steve Poe" <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: "Alex Turner" <armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and
Date: 2006-08-09 05:45:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

I thought so. In my test, I tried to be fair/equal since my Sun box has two
4-disc arrays each on their own channel. So, I just used one of them which
should be a little slower than the 6-disc with 192MB cache.

Incidently, the two internal SCSI drives, which are on the 6i adapter,
generated a TPS of 18.

I thought this server would impressive from notes I've read in the group.
This is why I thought I might be doing something wrong. I stumped which way
to take this. There is no obvious fault but something isn't right.


On 8/8/06, Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> wrote:
> Steve,
> > Sun box with 4-disc array (4GB RAM. 4 167GB 10K SCSI RAID10
> > LSI MegaRAID 128MB). This is after 8 runs.
> >
> > dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,us,12,2,5
> > dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,sy,59,50,53
> > dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,wa,1,0,0
> > dbserver-dual-opteron-centos,08/08/06,Tuesday,20,id,45,26,38
> >
> > Average TPS is 75
> >
> > HP box with 8GB RAM. six disc array RAID10 on SmartArray 642
> > with 192MB RAM. After 8 runs, I see:
> >
> > intown-vetstar-amd64,08/09/06,Tuesday,23,us,31,0,3
> > intown-vetstar-amd64,08/09/06,Tuesday,23,sy,16,0,1
> > intown-vetstar-amd64,08/09/06,Tuesday,23,wa,99,6,50
> > intown-vetstar-amd64,08/09/06,Tuesday,23,id,78,0,42
> >
> > Average TPS is 31.
> Note that the I/O wait (wa) on the HP box high, low and average are all
> *much* higher than on the Sun box.  The average I/O wait was 50% of one
> CPU, which is huge.  By comparison there was virtually no I/O wait on
> the Sun machine.
> This is indicating that your HP machine is indeed I/O bound and
> furthermore is tying up a PG process waiting for the disk to return.
> - Luke

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kenji MorishigeDate: 2006-08-09 06:30:14
Subject: Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000
Previous:From: Arjen van der MeijdenDate: 2006-08-09 05:35:22
Subject: Re: most bang for buck with ~ $20,000

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