On 04/09/14 14:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz>
wrote:



Hi Amit,

Results look pretty good. Does it help in the read-write case too?

Last time I ran the tpc-b test of pgbench (results of which are
posted earlier in this thread), there doesn't seem to be any major
gain for that, however for cases where read is predominant, you
might see better gains.

I am again planing to take that data in next few days.


FWIW below are some test results on the 60 core beast with this patch applied to 9.4. I'll need to do more runs to iron out the variation, but it looks like the patch helps the standard (write heavy) pgbench workload a little, and clearly helps the read only case.


4x E7-4890 15 cores each.
1 TB ram
16x Toshiba PX02SS SATA SSD
4x Samsung NVMe XS1715 PCIe SSD

Ubuntu 14.04  (Linux 3.13)
Postgres 9.4 beta2
+ buffer eviction patch v5

Pgbench

scale 2000

Non default params:

max_connections = 400;
shared_buffers = "10GB";
maintenance_work_mem = "1GB";
effective_io_concurrency = 10;
wal_buffers = "256MB";
checkpoint_segments = 1920;
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.8;
ssl = 'off';
wal_sync_method = 'open_datasync';

read write

elapsed 600s

Clients  | tps   | tps (unpatched)
---------+-------+----------------
  6      |  8279 |  8328
  12     | 16260 | 16381
  24     | 23639 | 23451
  48     | 31430 | 31004
  96     | 38516 | 34777
 192     | 33535 | 32443
 384     | 27978 | 25068
 384     | 30589 | 28798


read only

elapsed 300s

Clients  | tps    | tps (unpatched)
---------+--------+----------------
  6      |  57654 |  57255
  12     | 111361 | 112360
  24     | 220304 | 187967
  48     | 384567 | 230961
  96     | 380309 | 241947
 192     | 330865 | 214570
 384     | 315516 | 207548


Regards

Mark


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to