On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 6:11 PM Suraj Kharage <suraj.khar...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > We at EnterpriseDB did some performance testing around this parallel backup > to check how this is beneficial and below are the results. In this testing, > we run the backup - > 1) Without Asif’s patch > 2) With Asif’s patch and combination of workers 1,2,4,8. > > We run those test on two setup > > 1) Client and Server both on the same machine (Local backups) > > 2) Client and server on a different machine (remote backups) > > > Machine details: > > 1: Server (on which local backups performed and used as server for remote > backups) > > 2: Client (Used as a client for remote backups) > > ... > > > Client & Server on the same machine, the result shows around 50% improvement > in parallel run with worker 4 and 8. We don’t see the huge performance > improvement with more workers been added. > > > Whereas, when the client and server on a different machine, we don’t see any > major benefit in performance. This testing result matches the testing > results posted by David Zhang up thread. > > > > We ran the test for 100GB backup with parallel worker 4 to see the CPU usage > and other information. What we noticed is that server is consuming the CPU > almost 100% whole the time and pg_stat_activity shows that server is busy > with ClientWrite most of the time. > >
Was this for a setup where the client and server were on the same machine or where the client was on a different machine? If it was for the case where both are on the same machine, then ideally, we should see ClientRead events in a similar proportion? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
