From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Open request for benchmarking input |
Date: | 2005-11-26 20:15:28 |
Message-ID: | BFAE0260.147E6%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jeff, Qingqing,
On 11/26/05 10:57 AM, "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> wrote:
>
> "Jeff Frost" <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> wrote
>>
>> Did you folks see this article on Slashdot with a fellow requesting input
>> on what sort of benchmarks to run to get a good Postgresql vs Mysql
>> dataset? Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for us to get some good
>> benchmarking done.
>> "The hardware I have available is as follows:
>>
>> * 2x dual Opteron 8G ram, 2x144G 15Krpm SCSI
>> * 2x dual Opteron 8G ram, 2x72G 15Krpm SCSI
>> * 1x dual Opteron 16G ram, 2x36G 15Krpm SCSI 16x400G 7200rpm SATA
>>
I suggest specifying a set of basic system / HW benchmarks to baseline the
hardware before each benchmark is run. This has proven to be a major issue
with most performance tests. My pick for I/O is bonnie++.
Your equipment allows you the opportunity to benchmark all 5 machines
running together as a cluster - this is important to measure maturity of
solutions for high performance warehousing. Greenplum can provide you a
license for Bizgres MPP for this purpose.
> (2) The hardware configuration may not reflect all potentials of PostgreSQL.
> For example, so far, PostgreSQL does not pay much attention in reducing I/O
> cost, so a stronger RAID definitely will benefit PostgreSQL performance.
The 16x SATA drives should be great, provided you have a high performance
RAID adapter configured properly. You should be able to get 800MB/s of
sequential scan performance by using a card like the 3Ware 9550SX. I've
also heard that the Areca cards are good (how good?). Configuration of the
I/O must be validated though - I've seen as low as 25MB/s from a
misconfigured system.
>> For my own interests, I would like to at least cover the following bases:
>> 32 bit vs 64 bit vs 64 bit kernel + 32 bit user-space; data warehouse type
>> tests (data >> memory); and web prefs test (active data RAM)
>>
>
> Don't forget TPCC (data > memory, with intensive updates). So the benchmarks
> in my mind include TPCC, TPCH and TPCW.
I agree with Qingqing, though I think the OSTG DBT-3 (very similar to TPC-H)
is sufficient for data warehousing.
This is a fairly ambitious project - one problem I see is that MySQL may not
run all of these benchmarks, particularly the DBT-3. Also - would the rules
allow for mixing / matching pluggable features of the DBMS? Innodb versus
MyISAM?
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron | 2005-11-26 20:31:33 | Re: Open request for benchmarking input |
Previous Message | David Lang | 2005-11-26 19:34:14 | Re: Hardware/OS recommendations for large databases ( |