On 12/05/2012 10:34 AM, Andrea Suisani wrote:
[sorry
for resuming an old thread]
[cut]
Question is... will that remove the
performance penalty of HyperThreading?
So I've added to my todo list to perform a test to verify this
claim :)
done.
on this box:
in a brief: the box is dell a PowerEdge
r720 with 16GB of RAM,
the cpu is a Xeon 5620 with 6 core, the OS is installed on a
raid
(sata disk 7.2k rpm) and the PGDATA is on separate RAID 1 array
(sas 15K rpm) and the controller is a PERC H710 (bbwc with a
cache
of 512 MB). (ubuntu 12.04)
with postgres 9.2.1 and $PGDATA on a ext4 formatted partition
i've got:
those are the results:
HT HT SYSFS DIS HT BIOS DISABLE
-c -t r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 r3
5 20K 1641 1831 1496 2020 1974 2033 2005 1988 1967
10 10K 2161 2134 2136 2277 2252 2216 1854 1824 1810
20 5k 2550 2508 2558 2417 2388 2357 1924 1928 1954
30 3333 2216 2272 2250 2333 2493 2496 1993 2009 2008
40 2.5K 2179 2221 2250 2568 2535 2500 2025 2048 2018
50 2K 2217 2213 2213 2487 2449 2604 2112 2016 2023
on the same machine with the same configuration,
having PGDATA on a xfs formatted partition gives me
a much better TPS.
e.g. pgbench -c 20 -t 5000 gives me 6305 TPS
(3 runs with "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches &&
/etc/init.d/postgresql-9.2 restart"
in between).
Anybody else have experienced this kind of differences
between etx4 and xfs?
Andrea
I thought that postgreSQL did its own journalling, if that is the
proper term, so why not use an ext2 file system to lower overhead?
|
