From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, stange(at)rentec(dot)com |
Cc: | "Dave Cramer" <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
Date: | 2005-11-18 19:24:48 |
Message-ID: | BFA36A80.140AE%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greg,
On 11/18/05 11:07 AM, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> That said, 130MB/s is nothing to sneeze at, that's maxing out two high end
> drives and quite respectable for a 3-disk stripe set, even reasonable for a
> 4-disk stripe set. If you're using 5 or more disks in RAID-0 or RAID 1+0 and
> only getting 130MB/s then it does seem likely the cpu is actually holding you
> back here.
With an FC array, it's undoubtedly more like 14 drives, in which case
130MB/s is laughable. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if it were
a single 200MB/s Fibre Channel attachment.
It does make you wonder why people keep recommending 15K RPM drives, like it
would help *not*.
> Still it doesn't show Postgres being nearly so CPU wasteful as the original
> poster claimed.
It's partly about waste, and partly about lack of a concurrent I/O
mechanism. We've profiled it for the waste, we've implemented concurrent
I/O to prove the other point.
>> It's all in the kernel either way; using a different scheduler or file
>> system would change that result. Even better would be using direct IO to not
>> flush everything else from memory and avoid some memory copies from kernel
>> to user space. Note that almost none of the time is user time. Changing
>> postgresql won't change the cpu useage.
>
> Well changing to direct i/o would still be changing Postgres so that's
> unclear. And there are plenty of more mundane ways that Postgres is
> responsible for how efficiently or not the kernel is used. Just using fewer
> syscalls to do the same amount of reading would reduce cpu consumption.
Bingo.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alan Stange | 2005-11-18 19:39:30 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-11-18 19:07:34 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |