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: RAID 10 Ben...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 6 Topic 4057 of 4159
Post > Topic >>

Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers

by gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Smith) May 6, 2008 at 04:21 PM

On Tue, 6 May 2008, Craig James wrote:

> I only did two runs of each, which took about 24 minutes.  Like the
first 
> round of tests, the "noise" in the measurements (about 10%) exceeds the 
> difference between scheduler-algorithm performance, except that 
> "anticipatory" seems to be measurably slower.

Those are much better results.  Any test that says anticipatory is 
anything other than useless for database system use with a good controller

I presume is broken, so that's how I know you're in the right ballpark now

but weren't before.

In order to actually get some useful data out of the noise that is 
pgbench, you need a lot more measurements of longer runs.  As perspective,

the last time I did something in this area, in order to get enough data to

get a clear picture I ran tests for 12 hours.  I'm hoping to repeat that 
soon with some more common hardware that gives useful results I can give 
out.

> So it still looks like cfq, noop and deadline are more or less
equivalent 
> when used with a battery-backed RAID.

I think it's fair to say they're within 10% of one another on raw 
throughput.  The thing you're not measuring here is worst-case latency, 
and that's where there might be a more interesting difference.  Most tests

I've seen suggest deadline is the best in that regard, cfq the worst, and 
where noop fits in depends on the underlying controller.

pgbench produces log files with latency measurements if you pass it "-l". 
Here's a snippet of shell that runs pgbench then looks at the resulting 
latency results for the worst 5 numbers:

pgbench ... -l &
p=$!
wait $p
mv pgbench_log.${p} pgbench.log
echo Worst latency results:
cat pgbench.log | cut -f 3 -d " " | sort -n | tail -n 5

However, that may not give you much useful info either--in most cases 
checkpoint issues kind of swamp the worst-base behavior in PostgreSQL, 
and to quantify I/O schedulers you need to look more complicated 
statistics on latency.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.gregsmith.com
Baltimore, MD

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




 6 Posts in Topic:
Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-06 16:21:08 
Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers
craig_james@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-06 13:43:54 
Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers
laurenz.albe@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-07 09:29:05 
Re: RAID 10 Benchmark with different I/O schedulers
craig_james@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-06-25 18:52:59 
Re: Typecast bug?
tgl@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-06-26 01:33:30 
Re: Typecast bug?
craig_james@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-06-25 23:22:20 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


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

Contact
tan13V112 Wed Jul 9 0:04:58 CDT 2008.