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

Re: Having I/O problems in simple virtualized environment

From: Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa <ildefonso(dot)camargo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ron Arts <ron(dot)arts(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Having I/O problems in simple virtualized environment
Date: 2012-01-31 21:13:12
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Ron Arts <ron(dot)arts(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Op 30-01-12 02:52, Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa schreef:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Ron Arts <ron(dot)arts(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hi list,
>>> I am running PostgreSQL 8.1 (CentOS 5.7) on a VM on a single XCP (Xenserver) host.
>>> This is a HP server with 8GB, Dual Quad Core, and 2 SATA in RAID-1.
>>> The problem is: it's running very slow compared to running it on bare metal, and
>>> the VM is starving for I/O bandwidht, so other processes (slow to a crawl.
>>> This does not happen on bare metal.
>>> I had to replace the server with a bare-metal one, I could not troubleshoot in production.
>>> Also it was hard to emulte the workload for that VM in a test environment, so I
>>> concentrated on PostgreSQLand why it apparently generated so much I/O.
>>> Before I start I should confess having only spotty experience with Xen and PostgreSQL
>>> performance testing.
>>> I setup a test Xen server created a CentOS5.7 VM with out-of-the-box PostgreSQL and ran:
>>> pgbench -i  pgbench ; time pgbench -t 100000 pgbench
>>> This ran for 3:28. Then I replaced the SATA HD with an SSD disk, and reran the test.
>>> It ran for 2:46. This seemed strange as I expected the run to finish much faster.
>>> I reran the first test on the SATA, and looked at CPU and I/O use. The CPU was not used
>>> too much in both the VM (30%) and in dom0 (10%). The I/O use was not much as well,
>>> around 8MB/sec in the VM. (Couldn't use iotop in dom0, because of missing kernel support
>>> in XCP 1.1).
>>> It reran the second test on SSD, and experienced almost the same CPU, and I/O load.
>>> (I now probably need to run the same test on bare metal, but didn't get to that yet,
>>> all this already ruined my weekend.)
>>> Now I came this far, can anybody give me some pointers? Why doesn't pgbench saturate
>>> either the CPU or the I/O? Why does using SSD only change the performance this much?
>> Ok, one point: Which IO scheduler are you using?  (on dom0 and on the VM).
> Ok, first dom0:
> For the SSD (hda):
> # cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
> [noop] anticipatory deadline cfq

Use deadline.

> For the SATA:
> # cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler
> noop anticipatory deadline [cfq]

Use deadline too (this is specially true if sdb is a raid array).

> Then in the VM:
> # cat /sys/block/xvda/queue/scheduler
> [noop] anticipatory deadline cfq

Should be ok for the VM.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Alessandro GagliardiDate: 2012-01-31 21:22:12
Subject: From Simple to Complex
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2012-01-31 20:20:45
Subject: Re: How to improve insert speed with index on text column

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