On 05/03/13 11:54, Steven Crandell wrote:
Here's our hardware break down.
The logvg on the new hardware is 30MB/s slower (170 MB/s vs 200 MB/s )
than the logvg on the older hardware which was an immediately interesting
difference but we have yet to be able to create a test scenario that
successfully implicates this slower log speed in our problems. That is
something we are actively working on.
Old server hardware:
Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
Product Name: PowerEdge R810
4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7540 @ 2.00GHz
32x16384 MB 1066 MHz DDR3
Controller 0: PERC H700 - 2 disk RAID-1 278.88 GB rootvg
Controller 1: PERC H800 - 18 disk RAID-6 2,178.00 GB datavg, 4
drive RAID-10 272.25 GB logvg, 2 hot spare
2x 278.88 GB 15K SAS on controller 0
24x 136.13 GB 15K SAS on controller 1
New server hardware:
Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
Product Name: PowerEdge R820
4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4620 0 @ 2.20GHz
32x32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Controller 0: PERC H710P - 4 disk RAID-6 557.75 GB rootvg
Controller 1: PERC H810 - 20 disk RAID-60 4,462.00 GB datavg, 2
disk RAID-1 278.88 GB logvg, 2 hot spare
28x278.88 GB 15K SAS drives total.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Right - It is probably worth running 'pg_test_fsync' on the two logvg's
and comparing the results. This will tell you if the commit latency is
similar or not on the two disk systems.
One other difference that springs immediately to mind is that datavg is
an 18 disk RAID 6 on the old system and a 20 disk RAID 60 on the new
one...so you have about 1/2 the io performance right there.
Cheers
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
