Dne 14.11.2011 22:58, Cody Caughlan napsal(a): > I ran bonnie++ on a slave node, doing active streaming replication but > otherwise idle: > http://batch-files-test.s3.amazonaws.com/sql03.prod.html > > bonnie++ on the master node: > http://batch-files-test.s3.amazonaws.com/sql01.prod.html > > If I am reading this right, this is my first time using it, the > numbers dont look too good. I've done some benchmarks on my own (m1.xlarge instance), and the results are these (http://pastebin.com/T1LXHru0): single drive ------------ dd writes: 62 MB/s dd reads: 110 MB/s bonnie seq. writes: 55 MB/s bonnie seq. rewrite: 33 MB/s bonnie seq. reads: 91 MB/s bonnie seeks: 370/s raid 0 (4 devices) ----------------------------- dd writes: 220 MB/s dd reads: 380 MB/s bonnie seq. writes: 130 MB/s bonnie seq. rewrite: 114 MB/s bonnie seq. reads: 280 MB/s bonnie seeks: 570/s raid 10 (4 devices) ----------------------------- dd writes: 90 MB/s dd reads: 200 MB/s bonnie seq. writes: 49 MB/s bonnie seq. rewrite: 56 MB/s bonnie seq. reads: 160 MB/s bonnie seeks: 590/s So the results are rather different from your results (both master and slave). What surprises me a bit is the decrease of write performance between sigle drive and RAID 10. I've used bonnie++ 1.03e, so I'm wondering if the 1.96 would give different results ... All those benchmarks were performed with ext3. Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
