Re: Raid 5 vs Raid 10 Benchmarks Using bonnie++

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:17 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

On 08/17/2011 02:26 PM, Ogden wrote:
I am using bonnie++ to benchmark our current Postgres system (on RAID 5) with the new one we have, which I have configured with RAID 10. The drives are the same (SAS 15K). I tried the new system with ext3 and then XFS but the results seem really outrageous as compared to the current system, or am I reading things wrong?

The benchmark results are here:
http://malekkoheavyindustry.com/benchmark.html

Congratulations--you're now qualified to be a member of the "RAID5 sucks" club.  You can find other members at http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html  Reasonable read speeds and just terrible write ones are expected if that's on your old hardware.  Your new results are what I would expect from the hardware you've described.

The only thing that looks weird are your ext4 "Sequential Output - Block" results.  They should be between the ext3 and the XFS results, not far lower than either.  Normally this only comes from using a bad set of mount options.  With a battery-backed write cache, you'd want to use "nobarrier" for example; if you didn't do that, that can crush output rates.


I have mounted the ext4 system with the nobarrier option:

/dev/sdb1 on /var/lib/pgsql type ext4 (rw,noatime,data="">

Yet the results show absolutely a decrease in performance in the  ext4 "Sequential Output - Block" results:


However, the Random seeks is better, even more so than XFS...

Any thoughts as to why this is occurring?

Ogden



[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux