Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance]
От | Andrea Suisani |
---|---|
Тема | Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance] |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50C06652.2080902@opinioni.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Two identical systems, radically different performance (Craig James <cjames@emolecules.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: xfs perform a lot better than ext4 [WAS: Re: Two identical systems,
radically different performance]
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
[added performance list back] On 12/06/2012 10:04 AM, John Lister wrote: > Thanks for the info, I'll have a play and see what values I get with similar settings, etc you're welcome > Still think something is wrong with my config, but we'll see. which kind of ssd disks do you have ? maybe they are of the same typeShaun Thomas is having problem with here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2012-12/msg00030.php Andrea > john > > On 06/12/2012 08:44, Andrea Suisani wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> On 12/06/2012 09:29 AM, John Lister wrote: >>> >>>> on this box: >>>> >>>>> in a brief: the box is dell a PowerEdge r720 with 16GB of RAM, >>>>> the cpu is a Xeon 5620 with 6 core, the OS is installed on a raid >>>>> (sata disk 7.2k rpm) and the PGDATA is on separate RAID 1 array >>>>> (sas 15K rpm) and the controller is a PERC H710 (bbwc with a cache >>>>> of 512 MB). (ubuntu 12.04) >>>> >>>> on the same machine with the same configuration, >>>> having PGDATA on a xfs formatted partition gives me >>>> a much better TPS. >>>> >>>> e.g. pgbench -c 20 -t 5000 gives me 6305 TPS >>>> (3 runs with "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches && /etc/init.d/postgresql-9.2 restart" >>>> in between). >> >> >>> Hi, I found this interesting as I'm trying to do some benchmarks on my box which is >> > very similar to the above but I don't believe the tps is any where near what it should be. >> > Is the 6305 figure from xfs? >> >> yes, it is. >> >>> I'm assuming that your main data array is just 2 15k sas drives, >> >> correct >> >>> are you putting the WAL on the data array or is that stored somewhere else? >> >> pg_xlog is placed in the data array. >> >>> Can I ask what scaling params, >> >> sure, I've initialized pgbench db issuing: >> >> pgbench -i -s 10 pgbench >> >>> etc you used to build the pgbench tables and look at your postgresql.conf file to see if I missed something (offlineif you wish) >> >> those are non default values in postgresql.conf >> >> listen_addresses = '*' >> max_connections = 100 >> shared_buffers = 3200MB >> work_mem = 30MB >> maintenance_work_mem = 800MB >> synchronous_commit = off >> full_page_writes = off >> checkpoint_segments = 40 >> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 >> random_page_cost = 3.5 >> effective_cache_size = 10GB >> log_timezone = 'localtime' >> stats_temp_directory = 'pg_stat_tmp_ram' >> autovacuum_naptime = 5min >> >> and then OS tweaks: >> >> HT bios disabled >> /sbin/blockdev --setra 8192 /dev/sdb >> echo deadline > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler >> vm.swappiness=0 >> vm.overcommit_memory=2 >> vm.dirty_ratio=2 >> vm.dirty_background_ratio=1 >> kernel.shmmax=3454820352 >> kernel.shmall=2048341 >> $PGDATA is on xfs (rw,noatime) >> tmpfs on /db/9.2/pg_stat_tmp_ram type tmpfs (rw,size=50M,uid=1001,gid=1001) >> kernel 3.2.0-32-generic >> >> >> Andrea >> >> > >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: