On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Evgeny Shishkin <itparan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Craig James <cja...@emolecules.com> wrote: > > I tested both the RAID10 data disk and the RAID1 xlog disk with bonnie++. > The xlog disks were almost identical in performance. The RAID10 pg-data > disks looked like this: > > Old server: > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > xenon 24064M 687 99 203098 26 81904 16 3889 96 403747 31 > 737.6 31 > Latency 20512us 469ms 394ms 21402us 396ms > 112ms > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random > Create-------- > xenon -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > /sec %CP > 16 15953 27 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ > +++++ +++ > Latency 43291us 857us 519us 1588us 37us > 178us > > 1.96,1.96,xenon,1,1349726125,24064M,,687,99,203098,26,81904,16,3889,96,403747,31,737.6,31,16,,,,,15953,27,+++++,+++,+++++,++\ > > +,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,20512us,469ms,394ms,21402us,396ms,112ms,43291us,857us,519us,1588us,37us,178us > > > New server: > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- > --Random- > Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- > --Seeks-- > Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP > /sec %CP > zinc 24064M 862 99 212143 54 96008 14 4921 99 279239 17 > 752.0 23 > Latency 15613us 598ms 597ms 2764us 398ms > 215ms > Version 1.96 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random > Create-------- > zinc -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- > -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > /sec %CP > 16 20380 26 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ +++++ +++ > +++++ +++ > Latency 487us 627us 407us 972us 29us > 262us > > 1.96,1.96,zinc,1,1349722017,24064M,,862,99,212143,54,96008,14,4921,99,279239,17,752.0,23,16,,,,,20380,26,+++++,+++,+++++,+++\ > > ,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,15613us,598ms,597ms,2764us,398ms,215ms,487us,627us,407us,972us,29us,262us > > > Sequential Input on the new one is 279MB/s, on the old 400MB/s. > > But why? What have I overlooked? Thanks, Craig
