Scott,
Can confirm that for pg purposes, 3.2 is basically broken in some not
to great ways. We've had servers that were overloaded at load factors
of 20 or 30 drop down to 5 or less with just a change from 3.2 to
3.11/3.13 on ubuntu 12.04
That's correct, and 3.5 shares the same problems.
Josh, there seems to be an inconsistency in your blog. You say 3.10.X is
safe, but the graph you show with the poor performance seems to be from
3.13.X which as I understand it is a later kernel. Can you clarify which
3.X kernels are good to use and which are not?
Sorry to cut in -
So
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:35 AM, Graeme B. Bell g...@skogoglandskap.no wrote:
ext4 settings
ext4, nobarrier
noatime+nodatime,
stripestride aligned between raid10 ext4 correctly.
Some other useful things to know
-- h710p
readahead disabled on H710P
writeback cache enabled on H710P
ext4 settings
ext4, nobarrier
noatime+nodatime,
stripestride aligned between raid10 ext4 correctly.
Some other useful things to know
-- h710p
readahead disabled on H710P
writeback cache enabled on H710P
Direct IO enabled on H710P
-- os filesystem settings
linux readahead enabled (16384),
better performance.
-Wes
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Nolan
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:09 PM
To: Josh Berkus
Cc: Mel Llaguno; Przemysław Deć; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Some
Can you say how much faster it was?
Przemek Deć
2015-04-09 11:04 GMT+02:00 Graeme B. Bell g...@skogoglandskap.no:
Josh, there seems to be an inconsistency in your blog. You say 3.10.X is
safe, but the graph you show with the poor performance seems to be from
3.13.X which as I
From a measurement I took back when we did the upgrade:
performance with 2.6: (pgbench, size 100, 32 clients)
48 651 transactions per second (read only)
6 504 transactions per second (read-write)
performance with 3.18 (pgbench, size 100, 32 clients)
129 303 transactions per second (read
Wow, thats huge performance gain.
And it was on ext4?
--
Linux Polska Sp. z o.o.
Przemysław Deć - Senior Solutions Architect
RHCSA, RHCJA, PostgreSQL Professional Certification
mob: +48 519 130 141
email: p...@linuxpolska.pl
www.linuxpolska.pl
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
On 04/07/2015 11:07 AM, Mel Llaguno wrote:
Care to elaborate? We usually do not recommend specific kernel versions
for our customers (who run on a variety of distributions). Thanks, M.
You should.
: [PERFORM] Some performance testing?
On 04/07/2015 11:07 AM, Mel Llaguno wrote:
Care to elaborate? We usually do not recommend specific kernel versions
for our customers (who run on a variety of distributions). Thanks, M.
You should.
http://www.databasesoup.com/2014/09/why-you-need-to-avoid-linux
On 04/07/2015 11:07 AM, Mel Llaguno wrote:
Care to elaborate? We usually do not recommend specific kernel versions
for our customers (who run on a variety of distributions). Thanks, M.
You should.
http://www.databasesoup.com/2014/09/why-you-need-to-avoid-linux-kernel-32.html
Performance is
FYI - all my tests were conducted using Ubuntu 12.04 x64 LTS (which I
believe are all 3.xx series kernels).
Mel Llaguno • Staff Engineer – Team Lead
Office: +1.403.264.9717 x310
www.coverity.com http://www.coverity.com/ • Twitter: @coverity
Coverity by Synopsys
On 4/6/15, 2:51 PM, Josh Berkus
On 04/07/2015 09:46 AM, Mel Llaguno wrote:
FYI - all my tests were conducted using Ubuntu 12.04 x64 LTS (which I
believe are all 3.xx series kernels).
If it's 3.2 or 3.5, then your tests aren't useful, I'm afraid. Both of
those kernels have known, severe, memory management issues.
--
Josh
Care to elaborate? We usually do not recommend specific kernel versions
for our customers (who run on a variety of distributions). Thanks, M.
Mel Llaguno • Staff Engineer – Team Lead
Office: +1.403.264.9717 x310
www.coverity.com http://www.coverity.com/ • Twitter: @coverity
Coverity by Synopsys
On 04/01/2015 01:37 AM, Przemysław Deć wrote:
Maybe you will find time to benchamark xfs vs ext4 (with and without
journaling enabled on ext4).
Nice comparison also could be rhel 6.5 with its newest kernel 2.6.32-X
vs RHEL 7.0 and kernel 3.10.
Due to how these are hosted, I can't swap out
: [PERFORM] Some performance testing?
Maybe you will find time to benchamark xfs vs ext4 (with and without journaling
enabled on ext4).
Nice comparison also could be rhel 6.5 with its newest kernel 2.6.32-X vs RHEL
7.0 and kernel 3.10.
I was looking for some guidance what to choose and there is very
Maybe you will find time to benchamark xfs vs ext4 (with and without
journaling enabled on ext4).
Nice comparison also could be rhel 6.5 with its newest kernel 2.6.32-X vs
RHEL 7.0 and kernel 3.10.
I was looking for some guidance what to choose and there is very poor
information about such
All,
I currently have access to a matched pair of 20-core, 128GB RAM servers
with SSD-PCI storage, for about 2 weeks before they go into production.
Are there any performance tests people would like to see me run on
these? Otherwise, I'll just do some pgbench and DVDStore.
--
Josh Berkus
It would be interesting to get raw performance benchmarks in addition to
PG specific benchmarks. I’ve been measuring raw I/O performance of a few
of our systems and run the following tests as well:
1. 10 runs of bonnie++
2. 5 runs of hdparm -Tt
3. Using a temp file created on the SSD, dd
19 matches
Mail list logo
