Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAPpHfdu2zqhnjKngm7Yi2f6sq1_+AwzKN6BruQ80b5e-Wc_BdA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Proposal for CSN based snapshots (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
And here are the results on the 72 core machine (thanks again, Alexander!). The test setup was the same as on the 32-core machine, except that I ran it with more clients since the system has more CPU cores. In summary, in the best case, the patch increases throughput by about 10%. That peak is with 64 clients. Interestingly, as the number of clients increases further, the gain evaporates, and the CSN version actually performs worse than unpatched master. I don't know why that is. One theory that by eliminating one bottleneck, we're now hitting another bottleneck which doesn't degrade as gracefully when there's contention.On 08/23/2016 06:18 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:On 08/22/2016 08:38 PM, Andres Freund wrote:On 2016-08-22 20:32:42 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:I
remember seeing ProcArrayLock contention very visible earlier, but I can't
hit that now. I suspect you'd still see contention on bigger hardware,
though, my laptop has oly 4 cores. I'll have to find a real server for the
next round of testing.
Yea, I think that's true. I can just about see ProcArrayLock contention
on my more powerful laptop, to see it really bad you need bigger
hardware / higher concurrency.
As soon as I sent my previous post, Vladimir Borodin kindly offered
access to a 32-core server for performance testing. Thanks Vladimir!
I installed Greg Smith's pgbench-tools kit on that server, and ran some
tests. I'm seeing some benefit on "pgbench -N" workload, but only after
modifying the test script to use "-M prepared", and using Unix domain
sockets instead of TCP to connect. Apparently those things add enough
overhead to mask out the little difference.
Attached is a graph with the results. Full results are available at
https://hlinnaka.iki.fi/temp/csn-4-results/. In short, the patch
improved throughput, measured in TPS, with >= 32 or so clients. The
biggest difference was with 44 clients, which saw about 5% improvement.
So, not phenomenal, but it's something. I suspect that with more cores,
the difference would become more clear.
Like on a cue, Alexander Korotkov just offered access to a 72-core
system :-). Thanks! I'll run the same tests on that.
Did you try to identify this second bottleneck with perf or something?
It would be nice to also run pgbench -S. Also, it would be nice to check something like 10% of writes, 90% of reads (which is quite typical workload in real life I believe).
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: