| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Brad Nicholson <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net>, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSD + RAID |
| Date: | 2009-11-19 17:01:20 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150911190901q6763843dq3fa51c8cfe0160@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, that is sort of true for all benchmarks, but I do find that bonnie++
> is the worst of the bunch. I consider it relatively useless compared to
> fio. Its just not a great benchmark for server type load and I find it
> lacking in the ability to simulate real applications.
I agree. My biggest gripe with bonnie actually is that 99% of the
time is spent measuring in sequential tests which is not that
important in the database world. Dedicated wal volume uses ostensibly
sequential io, but it's fairly difficult to outrun a dedicated wal
volume even if it's on a vanilla sata drive.
pgbench is actually a pretty awesome i/o tester assuming you have big
enough scaling factor, because:
a) it's much closer to the environment you will actually run in
b) you get to see what i/o affecting options have on the load
c) you have broad array of options regarding what gets done (select
only, -f, etc)
d) once you build the test database, you can do multiple runs without
rebuilding it
merlin
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan Foy | 2009-11-19 17:06:06 | View based upon function won't use index on joins |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-11-19 14:49:08 | Re: SSD + RAID |