Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > Pgsql Performance > Re: Performance...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 3 of 4 Topic 3986 of 4424
Post > Topic >>

Re: Performance increase with elevator=deadline

by enrico.sirola@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enrico Sirola) Apr 18, 2008 at 04:38 PM

Hi,

Il giorno 11/apr/08, alle ore 20:03, Craig Ringer ha scritto:
>
> Speaking of I/O performance with PostgreSQL, has anybody here done  
> any testing to compare results with LVM to results with the same  
> filesystem on a conventionally partitioned or raw volume? I'd  
> probably use LVM even at a performance cost because of its admin  
> benefits, but I'd be curious if there is any known cost for use with  
> Pg. I've never been able to measure one with other workloads.

I performed some tests some time ago. LVM is significantly slower.
The disk subsystem is a HP P400/512MB battery-backed controller with 4  
disks in raid 10.
See the tests:


ext3 tests:

bonnie++ -s 16000 -u 0 -f -b
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
========================================================================

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-  
--Random-
                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--  
--Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
              16000M           153637  50 78895  17           204124   
17 700.6   1
                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random  
Create--------
                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---  
-Delete--
               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
                  16  2233  10 +++++ +++  2606   8  2255  10 +++++ ++ 
+  2584   7
16000M,,,153637,50,78895,17,,,204124,17,700.6,1,16,2233,10,+++++,+++, 
2606,8,2255,10,+++++,+++,2584,7


bonnie++ -s 16000 -u 0 -f
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
========================================================================

Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-  
--Random-
                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--  
--Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
              16000M           162223  51 77277  17           207055   
17 765.3   1
                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random  
Create--------
                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---  
-Delete--
               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
                  16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++  
+++++ +++
16000M,,,162223,51,77277,17,,,207055,17,765.3,1,16,+++++,+++,+++++,+++, 
+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++

= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
= 
========================================================================

LVM tests:

bonnie++ -u 0 -f -s 16000 -b
Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-  
--Random-
                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--  
--Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
              16000M           153768  52 53420  13           177414   
15 699.8   1
                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random  
Create--------
                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---  
-Delete--
               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
                  16  2158   9 +++++ +++  2490   7  2177   9 +++++ ++ 
+  2460   7
16000M,,,153768,52,53420,13,,,177414,15,699.8,1,16,2158,9,+++++,+++, 
2490,7,2177,9,+++++,+++,2460,7

bonnie++ -u 0 -f -s 16000
Version  1.03       ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input-  
--Random-
                     -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--  
--Seeks--
Machine        Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
              16000M           161476  53 54904  13           171693   
14 774.3   1
                     ------Sequential Create------ --------Random  
Create--------
                     -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read---  
-Delete--
               files  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec %CP  /sec  
%CP  /sec %CP
                  16 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++  
+++++ +++
16000M,,,161476,53,54904,13,,,171693,14,774.3,1,16,+++++,+++,+++++,+++, 
+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++

Bye,
e.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
 




 4 Posts in Topic:
Re: Performance increase with elevator=deadline
matthew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-04-11 17:40:02 
Re: Performance increase with elevator=deadline
craig@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-12 02:03:43 
Re: Performance increase with elevator=deadline
enrico.sirola@[EMAIL PROT  2008-04-18 16:38:05 
RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers (was: Performanc
craig_james@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-05 16:33:01 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Mon Dec 1 8:03:37 CST 2008.