Joshua,

Here is

shared_buffers = 80000
fsync = on
max_fsm_pages = 350000
max_connections = 1000
work_mem = 65536
effective_cache_size = 610000
random_page_cost = 3

Here is pgbench I used:

pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB

Thanks

Marty

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps

Marty Jia wrote:
> I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> parameters
>
> shared_buffers
> fsync
> max_fsm_pages
> max_connections
> shared_buffers
> work_mem
> max_fsm_pages
> effective_cache_size
> random_page_cost
>
> I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get

> higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench

What values did you use?

>
> Here is our hardware
>
>
> Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> 6GB RAM
> Linux 2.4 kernel
> RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
>
> With PostgreSql 8.1.4
>
> We don't have i/o bottle neck.

Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
you passing to pgbench?

Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
WAL ext2 instead of ext3.

> Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps

> over 1500, it is hard to believe.

1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>


--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
interactions are.

Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?

-- Mark

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the numbers. That
will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is often the first
inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have seen pretty bad
performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do you have running to
your server, remember each line is limited to about 200MB/sec, to get good
throughput, you will need multiple connections.

When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.

Alex.

On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis <mark.lewis@mir3.com> wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound. Check top
or vmstat to get an idea of that

Alex

On 8/22/06, Alex Turner <armtuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the numbers. That
> will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is often the first
> inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have seen pretty bad
> performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do you have running to
> your server, remember each line is limited to about 200MB/sec, to get good
> throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers say.
>
> Alex.
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
> > runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
> > more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
> > detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
> > case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
> > interactions are.
> >
> > Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
> > use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?
> >
> > -- Mark
> >
> > On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > > Joshua,
> > >
> > > Here is
> > >
> > > shared_buffers = 80000
> > > fsync = on
> > > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > > max_connections = 1000
> > > work_mem = 65536
> > > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > > random_page_cost = 3
> > >
> > > Here is pgbench I used:
> > >
> > > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > > To: Marty Jia
> > > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> > >
> > > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > > > parameters
> > > >
> > > > shared_buffers
> > > > fsync
> > > > max_fsm_pages
> > > > max_connections
> > > > shared_buffers
> > > > work_mem
> > > > max_fsm_pages
> > > > effective_cache_size
> > > > random_page_cost
> > > >
> > > > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not
> > get
> > >
> > > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> > >
> > > What values did you use?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Here is our hardware
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > > 6GB RAM
> > > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > > >
> > > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > > >
> > > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> > >
> > > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters
> > are
> > > you passing to pgbench?
> > >
> > > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making
> > your
> > > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> > >
> > > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get
> > tps
> > >
> > > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> > >
> > > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> > > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> > >
> > > Joshua D. Drake
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Marty
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> >
>
>

The scaling factor is 20
I used -v and 2>/dev/null, now I got

tps = 389.796376 (excluding connections establishing)

This is best so far I can get

Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Lewis [mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:32 AM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs; Rich
Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps

Well, at least on my test machines running gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores. Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what all the
interactions are.

Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve performance at all?

-- Mark

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas, like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but I just can not
> > get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench? What parameters
> are you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as well as making
> your WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I can should get
> > tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get 470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

----------- Here is vmstat

procs memory swap io system
cpu
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy
id wa
0 1 15416 18156 73372 4348488 1 1 3 2 4 1 2
1 2 2


----------- Here is iostat

avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
11.59 0.00 6.13 10.77 71.50

Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
sda 2.76 6.88 36.35 16036474 84688320
sda1 0.00 0.01 0.00 30100 1056
sda2 0.27 2.36 1.72 5509296 4017224
sda3 1.85 0.78 21.99 1819850 51242800
sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0
sda5 0.15 0.49 1.47 1131624 3425672
sda6 0.49 3.14 11.12 7320616 25899088
sda7 0.01 0.09 0.04 219960 102480
sdb 2.75 6.78 36.35 15803532 84688320
sdb1 0.00 0.01 0.00 24322 1056
sdb2 0.27 2.31 1.72 5391682 4017224
sdb3 1.84 0.79 21.99 1836088 51242800
sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 0
sdb5 0.15 0.49 1.47 1134546 3425672
sdb6 0.49 3.12 11.12 7273816 25899088
sdb7 0.01 0.06 0.04 138138 102480
sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 632 0
sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 0
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0
sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 112 0
sdi 139.89 680.59 839.42 1585722266 1955771032
sdj 139.72 680.21 835.90 1584829368 1947590800
sdk 139.82 680.30 840.74 1585053608 1958864880
sdl 139.86 680.56 841.26 1585657408 1960079576
sdm 54.80 6.67 891.38 15547618 2076836720
sdn 54.71 6.66 891.35 15509096 2076776352






________________________________

From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
To: Mark Lewis
Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps


Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound. Check
top or vmstat to get an idea of that

Alex


On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
wrote:

First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is
often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do
you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about
200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.

When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
say.


Alex.



On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
<mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:

Well, at least on my test machines running
gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
all the
interactions are.

Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
performance at all?

-- Mark

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but
I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to
majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list
cleanly

Here is iostat when running pgbench:

avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42

Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360

________________________________

From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
To: Mark Lewis
Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps


Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound. Check
top or vmstat to get an idea of that

Alex


On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
wrote:

First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is
often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do
you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about
200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.

When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
say.


Alex.



On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
<mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:

Well, at least on my test machines running
gnome-terminal, my pgbench
runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
performance to no
more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
throw away all the
detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
Caveat: in my
case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
all the
interactions are.

Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
factor did you
use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
performance at all?

-- Mark

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Here is
>
> shared_buffers = 80000
> fsync = on
> max_fsm_pages = 350000
> max_connections = 1000
> work_mem = 65536
> effective_cache_size = 610000
> random_page_cost = 3
>
> Here is pgbench I used:
>
> pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
>
> Thanks
>
> Marty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> To: Marty Jia
> Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
> Marty Jia wrote:
> > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
like following
> > parameters
> >
> > shared_buffers
> > fsync
> > max_fsm_pages
> > max_connections
> > shared_buffers
> > work_mem
> > max_fsm_pages
> > effective_cache_size
> > random_page_cost
> >
> > I believe all above have right size and values, but
I just can not get
>
> > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
>
> What values did you use?
>
> >
> > Here is our hardware
> >
> >
> > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > 6GB RAM
> > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> >
> > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> >
> > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
>
> Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
What parameters are
> you passing to pgbench?
>
> Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
well as making your
> WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
>
> > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
can should get tps
>
> > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
>
> 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
470tps or so on my
> measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
>

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to
majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list
cleanly

Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42

You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound. Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
> numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.
>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
> say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
> gnome-terminal, my pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
> performance to no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
> throw away all the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
> all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
> factor did you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
> performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
> like following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
> I just can not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
> well as making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
> can should get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
> 470tps or so on my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
> cleanly
>
>
>
>
>


--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Marty,

Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:

pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
`transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 20
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 10000
number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
tps = 561.056729 (including connections establishing)
tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections establishing)

Here's some iostat samples during the test:
tty mfid0 da0 cd0
cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in
id
6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
2 87
8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
4 43
5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
2 75
6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
3 56
1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
3 65

Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.

Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?

I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM speeds,
since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)? Although,
for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since subsequent
runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not believable
(i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back runs). So, as
long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it should be a
realistic test, right?

Thanks,

Bucky
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailtogsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps

Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42

You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
> numbers. That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have
> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.

>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
> say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
> gnome-terminal, my pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
> performance to no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
> throw away all the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
> all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
> factor did you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
> performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
> like following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
> I just can not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
> well as making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
> can should get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
> 470tps or so on my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
> appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
> cleanly
>
>
>
>
>


--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Bucky

My best result is around 380. I believe your hardware is more efficient,
because no matter how I change the conf parameters, no improvement can
be obtained. I even turned fsync off.

What is your values for the following parameters?

shared_buffers = 80000
max_fsm_pages = 350000
max_connections = 1000
work_mem = 65536
effective_cache_size = 610000
random_page_cost = 3

Thanks
Marty

-----Original Message-----
From: Bucky Jordan [mailto:bjordan@lumeta.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake; Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps

Marty,

Here's pgbench results from a stock FreeBSD 6.1 amd64/PG 8.1.4 install
on a Dell Poweredge 2950 with 8gb ram, 2x3.0 dual-core woodcrest (4MB
cache/socket) with 6x300GB 10k SAS drives:

pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d bench 2>/dev/null
pghost: pgport: (null) nclients: 10 nxacts: 10000 dbName: bench
`transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 20 number of clients:
10 number of transactions per client: 10000 number of transactions
actually processed: 100000/100000 tps = 561.056729 (including
connections establishing) tps = 561.127760 (excluding connections
establishing)

Here's some iostat samples during the test:
tty mfid0 da0 cd0
cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in
id
6 77 16.01 1642 25.67 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 3 0 8
2 87
8 157 17.48 3541 60.43 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 24 0 28
4 43
5 673 17.66 2287 39.44 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 10 0 13
2 75
6 2818 16.37 2733 43.68 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 17 0 23
3 56
1 765 18.05 2401 42.32 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 15 0 17
3 65

Note- the above was with no tuning to the kernel or postgresql.conf.

Now for my question- it seems that I've still got quite a bit of
headroom on the hardware I'm running the above tests on, since I know
the array will pump out > 200 MB/s (dd, bonnie++ numbers), and CPU
appears mostly idle. This would indicate I should be able to get some
significantly better numbers with postgresql.conf tweaks correct?

I guess the other problem is ensuring that we're not testing RAM speeds,
since most of the data is probably in memory (BSD io buffers)? Although,
for the initial run, that doesn't seem to be the case, since subsequent
runs without rebuilding the benchmark db are slightly not believable
(i.e. 1,200 going up to >2,500 tps over 5 back-to-back runs). So, as
long as I re-initialize the benchdb before each run, it should be a
realistic test, right?

Thanks,

Bucky
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org
[mailtogsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:16 PM
To: Marty Jia
Cc: Alex Turner; Mark Lewis; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; DBAs;
Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps

Marty Jia wrote:
> Here is iostat when running pgbench:
>
> avg-cpu: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle
> 26.17 0.00 8.25 23.17 42.42

You are are a little io bound and fairly cpu bound. I would be curious
if your performance goes down if you increase the number of connections
you are using.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Device: tps Blk_read/s Blk_wrtn/s Blk_read Blk_wrtn
> sda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sda7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdb7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sde 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0
> sdi 40.33 0.00 413.33 0 1240
> sdj 34.33 0.00 394.67 0 1184
> sdk 36.00 0.00 410.67 0 1232
> sdl 37.00 0.00 429.33 0 1288
> sdm 375.00 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
> sdn 378.33 0.00 3120.00 0 9360
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Alex Turner [mailto:armtuk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:27 AM
> To: Mark Lewis
> Cc: Marty Jia; Joshua D. Drake; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org;
DBAs;
> Rich Wilson; Ernest Wurzbach
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
>
>
> Oh - and it's usefull to know if you are CPU bound, or IO bound.
Check
> top or vmstat to get an idea of that
>
> Alex
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Alex Turner < armtuk@gmail.com <mailto:armtuk@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
> First things first, run a bonnie++ benchmark, and post the
numbers.
> That will give a good indication of raw IO performance, and
is
> often the first inidication of problems separate from the DB. We have

> seen pretty bad performance from SANs in the past. How many FC lines
do
> you have running to your server, remember each line is limited to
about
> 200MB/sec, to get good throughput, you will need multiple connections.

>
> When you run pgbench, run a iostat also and see what the numbers
say.
>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On 8/22/06, Mark Lewis < mark.lewis@mir3.com
> <mailto:mark.lewis@mir3.com> > wrote:
>
> Well, at least on my test machines running
gnome-terminal, my
> pgbench
> runs tend to get throttled by gnome-terminal's lousy
performance to
> no
> more than 300 tps or so. Running with 2>/dev/null to
throw away all
> the
> detailed logging gives me 2-3x improvement in scores.
> Caveat: in my
> case the db is on the local machine, so who knows what
all the
> interactions are.
>
> Also, when you initialized the pgbench db what scaling
factor did
> you
> use? And does running pgbench with -v improve
performance at all?
>
> -- Mark
>
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 09:19 -0400, Marty Jia wrote:
> > Joshua,
> >
> > Here is
> >
> > shared_buffers = 80000
> > fsync = on
> > max_fsm_pages = 350000
> > max_connections = 1000
> > work_mem = 65536
> > effective_cache_size = 610000
> > random_page_cost = 3
> >
> > Here is pgbench I used:
> >
> > pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 -d HQDB
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marty
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 6:09 PM
> > To: Marty Jia
> > Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] How to get higher tps
> >
> > Marty Jia wrote:
> > > I'm exhausted to try all performance tuning ideas,
like
> following
> > > parameters
> > >
> > > shared_buffers
> > > fsync
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > max_connections
> > > shared_buffers
> > > work_mem
> > > max_fsm_pages
> > > effective_cache_size
> > > random_page_cost
> > >
> > > I believe all above have right size and values, but
I just can
> not get
> >
> > > higher tps more than 300 testd by pgbench
> >
> > What values did you use?
> >
> > >
> > > Here is our hardware
> > >
> > >
> > > Dual Intel Xeon 2.8GHz
> > > 6GB RAM
> > > Linux 2.4 kernel
> > > RedHat Enterprise Linux AS 3
> > > 200GB for PGDATA on 3Par, ext3
> > > 50GB for WAL on 3Par, ext3
> > >
> > > With PostgreSql 8.1.4
> > >
> > > We don't have i/o bottle neck.
> >
> > Are you sure? What does iostat say during a pgbench?
> What parameters are
> > you passing to pgbench?
> >
> > Well in theory, upgrading to 2.6 kernel will help as
well as
> making your
> > WAL ext2 instead of ext3.
> >
> > > Whatelse I can try to better tps? Someone told me I
can should
> get tps
> >
> > > over 1500, it is hard to believe.
> >
> > 1500? Hmmm... I don't know about that, I can get
470tps or so on
> my
> > measily dual core 3800 with 2gig of ram though.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> > >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to
> majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list
cleanly
>
>
>
>
>


--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly