Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

Thanks all, but I still have not figured it out.
This is really strange because the tests were done on the same machine
(I use  HP ML110 Proliant 8gb RAM - Xeon 2.8 ghz processor (4
cores), and POSTGRESQL 10.1.
- Only the mentioned query running at the time of the test.
- I repeated the query 7 times and did not change the results.
- Before running each batch of 7 executions, I discarded the Operating
System cache and restarted DBMS like this:
(echo 3> / proc / sys / vm / drop_caches;

discs:
- 2 units of Samsung Evo SSD 500 GB (mounted on ZERO RAID)
- 2 SATA 7500 Krpm HDD units - 1TB (mounted on ZERO RAID)

- The Operating System and the Postgresql DBMS are installed on the SSD disk.

Best Regards
[ ]`s Neto


2018-01-16 13:24 GMT-08:00 Mark Kirkwood :
>
>
> On 16/01/18 23:14, Neto pr wrote:
>>
>> 2018-01-15 20:04 GMT-08:00 Mark Kirkwood :
>>>
>>> On 16/01/18 13:18, Fernando Hevia wrote:
>>>


 The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600
 Mb/s. None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are
 limited
 to the interface speed. The 12 Gb/s interface speed advantage kicks in
 when
 there are several drives installed and it won't make a diference in a
 single
 drive or even a two drive system.

 But don't take my word for it. Test your drives throughput with the
 command Justin suggested so you know exactly what each drive is capable
 of:

  Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
  time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
  skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size


 While common sense says SSD drive should outperform the mechanical one,
 your test scenario (large volume sequential reads) evens out the field a
 lot. Still I would have expected somewhat similar results in the
 outcome, so
 yes, it is weird that the SAS drive doubles the SSD performance. That is
 why
 I think there must be something else going on during your tests on the
 SSD
 server. It can also be that the SSD isn't working properly or you are
 running an suboptimal OS+server+controller configuration for the drive.

>>> I would second the analysis above - unless you see your read MB/s slammed
>>> up
>>> against 580-600MB/s contunuously then the interface speed is not the
>>> issue.
>>> We have some similar servers that we replaced 12x SAS with 1x SATA 6
>>> GBit/s
>>> (Intel DC S3710) SSD...and the latter way outperforms the original 12 SAS
>>> drives.
>>>
>>> I suspect the problem is the particular SSD you have - I have benchmarked
>>> the 256GB EVO variant and was underwhelmed by the performance. These
>>> (budget) triple cell nand SSD seem to have highly variable read and write
>>> performance (the write is all about when the SLC nand cache gets
>>> full)...read I'm not so sure of - but it could be crappy chipset/firmware
>>> combination. In short I'd recommend *not* using that particular SSD for a
>>> database workload. I'd recommend one of the Intel Datacenter DC range
>>> (FWIW
>>> I'm not affiliated with Intel in any way...but their DC stuff works
>>> well).
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> Hi Mark
>> In other forums one person said me that on samsung evo should be
>> partition aligned to 3072 not  default 2048 , to start on erase block
>> bounduary .  And fs block should be 8kb. I am studing this too. Some
>> DBAs have reported in other situations that the SSDs when they are
>> full, are very slow. Mine is 85% full, so maybe that is also
>> influencing. I'm disappointed with this SSD from Samsung, because in
>> theory, the read speed of an SSD should be more than 300 times faster
>> than an HDD and this is not happening.
>>
>>
>
> Interesting - I didn't try changing the alignment. However I could get the
> rated write and read performance on simple benchmarks (provided it was in a
> PCIe V3 slot)...so figured it was ok with the default aligning. However once
> more complex workloads were attempted (databases and distributed object
> store) the performance was disappointing.
>
> If the SSD is 85% full that will not help either (also look at the expected
> lifetime of these EVO's - not that great for a server)!
>
> One thing worth trying is messing about with the IO scheduler: if you are
> using noop, then try deadline (like I said crappy firmware)...
>
> Realistically, I'd recommend getting an enterprise/DC SSD (put the EVO in
> your workstation, it will be quite nice there)!
>
> Cheers
> Mark

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Mark Kirkwood]

On 16/01/18 23:14, Neto pr wrote:

2018-01-15 20:04 GMT-08:00 Mark Kirkwood :

On 16/01/18 13:18, Fernando Hevia wrote:




The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600
Mb/s. None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are limited
to the interface speed. The 12 Gb/s interface speed advantage kicks in when
there are several drives installed and it won't make a diference in a single
drive or even a two drive system.

But don't take my word for it. Test your drives throughput with the
command Justin suggested so you know exactly what each drive is capable of:

 Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
 time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
 skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size


While common sense says SSD drive should outperform the mechanical one,
your test scenario (large volume sequential reads) evens out the field a
lot. Still I would have expected somewhat similar results in the outcome, so
yes, it is weird that the SAS drive doubles the SSD performance. That is why
I think there must be something else going on during your tests on the SSD
server. It can also be that the SSD isn't working properly or you are
running an suboptimal OS+server+controller configuration for the drive.


I would second the analysis above - unless you see your read MB/s slammed up
against 580-600MB/s contunuously then the interface speed is not the issue.
We have some similar servers that we replaced 12x SAS with 1x SATA 6 GBit/s
(Intel DC S3710) SSD...and the latter way outperforms the original 12 SAS
drives.

I suspect the problem is the particular SSD you have - I have benchmarked
the 256GB EVO variant and was underwhelmed by the performance. These
(budget) triple cell nand SSD seem to have highly variable read and write
performance (the write is all about when the SLC nand cache gets
full)...read I'm not so sure of - but it could be crappy chipset/firmware
combination. In short I'd recommend *not* using that particular SSD for a
database workload. I'd recommend one of the Intel Datacenter DC range (FWIW
I'm not affiliated with Intel in any way...but their DC stuff works well).

regards

Mark

Hi Mark
In other forums one person said me that on samsung evo should be
partition aligned to 3072 not  default 2048 , to start on erase block
bounduary .  And fs block should be 8kb. I am studing this too. Some
DBAs have reported in other situations that the SSDs when they are
full, are very slow. Mine is 85% full, so maybe that is also
influencing. I'm disappointed with this SSD from Samsung, because in
theory, the read speed of an SSD should be more than 300 times faster
than an HDD and this is not happening.




Interesting - I didn't try changing the alignment. However I could get 
the rated write and read performance on simple benchmarks (provided it 
was in a PCIe V3 slot)...so figured it was ok with the default aligning. 
However once more complex workloads were attempted (databases and 
distributed object store) the performance was disappointing.


If the SSD is 85% full that will not help either (also look at the 
expected lifetime of these EVO's - not that great for a server)!


One thing worth trying is messing about with the IO scheduler: if you 
are using noop, then try deadline (like I said crappy firmware)...


Realistically, I'd recommend getting an enterprise/DC SSD (put the EVO 
in your workstation, it will be quite nice there)!


Cheers
Mark

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

2018-01-15 17:58 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:19:59PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> >> Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
>> >> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
>> >> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
>> >
>> > Still I would have expected somewhat similar results in the outcome, so 
>> > yes,
>> > it is weird that the SAS drive doubles the SSD performance. That is why I
>> > think there must be something else going on during your tests on the SSD
>> > server. It can also be that the SSD isn't working properly or you are
>> > running an suboptimal OS+server+controller configuration for the drive.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> Can you help me to analyze the output of the command: dd if=/dev/sdX
>> of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to
>> optimal_io_size
>
> You should run the "dd" without the DB or anything else using the drive.  That
> gets peformance of the drive, without the DB.

Oh important observation,..

>
> You should probably rerun the "dd" command using /dev/sdb1 if there's an
> partition table on top (??).
>
> I'm still wondering about these:

See Below:
= SSD SATA 500GB 6 Gb/s
===--
root@hp2ml110deb:/etc# time sudo dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M
count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 71.0047 s, 484 MB/s

real1m11.109s
user0m0.008s
sys 0m16.584s
root@hp2ml110deb:/etc# time sudo dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M
count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 70.937 s, 484 MB/s

real1m11.089s
user0m0.012s
sys 0m16.312s
root@hp2ml110deb:/etc#


= HDD SAS 300GB 12 Gb/s
===--
root@deb:/home/user1#  time sudo dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null bs=1M
count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size

32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 147.232 s, 233 MB/s

real2m27.277s
user0m0.036s
sys 0m23.096s
root@deb:/home/user1#
root@deb:/home/user1#  time sudo dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null bs=1M
count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 153.698 s, 224 MB/s

real2m33.766s
user0m0.032s
sys 0m22.812s
root@deb:/home/user1#
-  END
---

I had not spoken, but my SAS HDD is connected to the HBA Controler,
through a SATA adapter, because the cable kit I would have to use and
it would be correct, was no available at the supplier,  so it sent the
SAS HDD with a SATA adapter. I found it strange that the speed of SAS
was below the SSD, and even then it can execute the query much faster.



>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 09:09:41PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> What about sdb partitions/FS?
>
>> > > readahead?  blockdev --getra
>>
>> > > If you're running under linux, maybe you can just send the output of:
>> > > for a in /sys/block/sdX/queue/*; do echo "$a `cat $a`"; done
>> > > or: tail 
>> > > /sys/block/sdX/queue/{minimum_io_size,optimal_io_size,read_ahead_kb,scheduler,rotational,max_sectors_kb,logical_block_size,physical_block_size}
>
> Justin

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

2018-01-15 16:18 GMT-08:00 Fernando Hevia :
>
>
> 2018-01-15 20:25 GMT-03:00 Neto pr :
>>
>> 2018-01-15 17:55 GMT-02:00 Fernando Hevia :
>> >
>> >
>> > 2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hello Neto
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all
>> >>>
>> >>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>> >>> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>> >>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS
>> >>> 320GB
>> >>> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
>> >>> My DBMS parameters presents in postgresql.conf is default, but in SSD
>> >>> I
>> >>> have changed random_page_cost = 1.0.
>> >>>
>> >> you are comparing a SAS Drive against a SATA SSD. Their interfaces
>> >> serve a
>> >> completely different bandwidth.
>> >> While a SAS-3 device does 12 Gbit/s  SATA-3 device  is only able to
>> >> transfer 6 Gbit/s  (a current SAS-4 reaches 22.5 Gbit/s)
>> >> Do a short research on SAS vs SATA and then use a SAS SSD for
>> >> comparison
>> >> :)
>> >
>> >
>> > The query being all read operations both drives should perform somewhat
>> > similarly. Therefore, either the SAS drive has some special sauce to it
>> > (a.k.a very fast built-in cache) or there is something else going on
>> > these
>> > systems. Otherwise he shouldn't be stressing the 6 Gbit/s interface
>> > limit
>> > with a single drive, be that the SATA or the SAS drive.
>> >
>> > Neto, you have been suggested to provide a number of command outputs to
>> > know
>> > more about your system. Testing the raw read throughput of both your
>> > drives
>> > should be first on your list.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Guys, sorry for the Top Post, I forgot 
>>
>> Fernando, I think the difference of 6 Gb/s to 12 Gb/s from SAS is what
>> caused the difference in query execution time.
>> Because looking at the execution plans and the cost estimate, I did
>> not see many differences, in methods of access among other things.
>> Regarding the query, none of them use indexes, since I did a first
>> test without indexes.
>> Do you think that if I compare the disk below HDD SAS that has a
>> transfer rate of 6Gb/s equal to the SSD SATA 6Gb/s, do you think the
>> SSD would be more agile in this case?
>>
>> HDD: HP 450GB 6G SAS 15K rpm LFF (3.5-inch) Part-Number: 652615-B21
>>
>> Neto
>
>
> The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600 Mb/s.
> None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are limited to the
> interface speed. The 12 Gb/s interface speed advantage kicks in when there
> are several drives installed and it won't make a diference in a single drive
> or even a two drive system.
>
> But don't take my word for it. Test your drives throughput with the command
> Justin suggested so you know exactly what each drive is capable of:
>
>> Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
>> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
>> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
>
>
> While common sense says SSD drive should outperform the mechanical one, your
> test scenario (large volume sequential reads) evens out the field a lot.
> Still I would have expected somewhat similar results in the outcome, so yes,
> it is weird that the SAS drive doubles the SSD performance. That is why I
> think there must be something else going on during your tests on the SSD
> server. It can also be that the SSD isn't working properly or you are
> running an suboptimal OS+server+controller configuration for the drive.

Ok.

Can you help me to analyze the output of the command: dd if=/dev/sdX
of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to
optimal_io_size
I put a heavy query running in the DBMS and ran the time sudo command
...  three times for each environment (SAS HDD and SATA SSD), see
below that the SSD had 412,325 and 120 MB/s
The HDD SAS had 183,176 and 183 MB/s ... strange that in the end the
SAS HDD can execute the query faster ... does it have something else
to analyze in the output below?

---  SAS HDD 320 Gb 12 Gb/s ==--
root@deb:/etc#  time sudo dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 188.01 s, 183 MB/s

real3m8.473s
user0m0.076s
sys 0m23.628s
root@deb:/etc#  time sudo dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 195.582 s, 176 MB/s

real3m16.304s
user0m0.056s
sys 0m19.632s
root@deb:/etc#  time sudo dd if=/dev/sda2 of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
32768+0 records in
32768+0 records out
34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 187.822 s, 183 MB/s

real3m8.457s
user0m0.032s

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Fernando Hevia]

2018-01-15 20:25 GMT-03:00 Neto pr :

> 2018-01-15 17:55 GMT-02:00 Fernando Hevia :
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Neto
> >>
> >> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all
> >>>
> >>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
> >>> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
> >>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS
> 320GB
> >>> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
> >>> My DBMS parameters presents in postgresql.conf is default, but in SSD I
> >>> have changed random_page_cost = 1.0.
> >>>
> >> you are comparing a SAS Drive against a SATA SSD. Their interfaces
> serve a
> >> completely different bandwidth.
> >> While a SAS-3 device does 12 Gbit/s  SATA-3 device  is only able to
> >> transfer 6 Gbit/s  (a current SAS-4 reaches 22.5 Gbit/s)
> >> Do a short research on SAS vs SATA and then use a SAS SSD for comparison
> >> :)
> >
> >
> > The query being all read operations both drives should perform somewhat
> > similarly. Therefore, either the SAS drive has some special sauce to it
> > (a.k.a very fast built-in cache) or there is something else going on
> these
> > systems. Otherwise he shouldn't be stressing the 6 Gbit/s interface limit
> > with a single drive, be that the SATA or the SAS drive.
> >
> > Neto, you have been suggested to provide a number of command outputs to
> know
> > more about your system. Testing the raw read throughput of both your
> drives
> > should be first on your list.
> >
>
>
> Guys, sorry for the Top Post, I forgot 
>
> Fernando, I think the difference of 6 Gb/s to 12 Gb/s from SAS is what
> caused the difference in query execution time.
> Because looking at the execution plans and the cost estimate, I did
> not see many differences, in methods of access among other things.
> Regarding the query, none of them use indexes, since I did a first
> test without indexes.
> Do you think that if I compare the disk below HDD SAS that has a
> transfer rate of 6Gb/s equal to the SSD SATA 6Gb/s, do you think the
> SSD would be more agile in this case?
>
> HDD: HP 450GB 6G SAS 15K rpm LFF (3.5-inch) Part-Number: 652615-B21
>
> Neto
>

The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600 Mb/s.
None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are limited to
the interface speed. The 12 Gb/s interface speed advantage kicks in when
there are several drives installed and it won't make a diference in a
single drive or even a two drive system.

But don't take my word for it. Test your drives throughput with the command
Justin suggested so you know exactly what each drive is capable of:

Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size


While common sense says SSD drive should outperform the mechanical one,
your test scenario (large volume sequential reads) evens out the field a
lot. Still I would have expected somewhat similar results in the outcome,
so yes, it is weird that the SAS drive doubles the SSD performance. That is
why I think there must be something else going on during your tests on the
SSD server. It can also be that the SSD isn't working properly or you are
running an suboptimal OS+server+controller configuration for the drive.

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

2018-01-15 17:55 GMT-02:00 Fernando Hevia :
>
>
> 2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
>>
>>
>> Hello Neto
>>
>> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>>> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
>>> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
>>> My DBMS parameters presents in postgresql.conf is default, but in SSD I
>>> have changed random_page_cost = 1.0.
>>>
>> you are comparing a SAS Drive against a SATA SSD. Their interfaces serve a
>> completely different bandwidth.
>> While a SAS-3 device does 12 Gbit/s  SATA-3 device  is only able to
>> transfer 6 Gbit/s  (a current SAS-4 reaches 22.5 Gbit/s)
>> Do a short research on SAS vs SATA and then use a SAS SSD for comparison
>> :)
>
>
> The query being all read operations both drives should perform somewhat
> similarly. Therefore, either the SAS drive has some special sauce to it
> (a.k.a very fast built-in cache) or there is something else going on these
> systems. Otherwise he shouldn't be stressing the 6 Gbit/s interface limit
> with a single drive, be that the SATA or the SAS drive.
>
> Neto, you have been suggested to provide a number of command outputs to know
> more about your system. Testing the raw read throughput of both your drives
> should be first on your list.
>


Guys, sorry for the Top Post, I forgot 

Fernando, I think the difference of 6 Gb/s to 12 Gb/s from SAS is what
caused the difference in query execution time.
Because looking at the execution plans and the cost estimate, I did
not see many differences, in methods of access among other things.
Regarding the query, none of them use indexes, since I did a first
test without indexes.
Do you think that if I compare the disk below HDD SAS that has a
transfer rate of 6Gb/s equal to the SSD SATA 6Gb/s, do you think the
SSD would be more agile in this case?

HDD: HP 450GB 6G SAS 15K rpm LFF (3.5-inch) Part-Number: 652615-B21

Neto

> Cheers.
>
>
>
>

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Fernando Hevia]

2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :

>
> Hello Neto
>
> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
>> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
>> My DBMS parameters presents in postgresql.conf is default, but in SSD I
>> have changed random_page_cost = 1.0.
>>
>> you are comparing a SAS Drive against a SATA SSD. Their interfaces serve
> a completely different bandwidth.
> While a SAS-3 device does 12 Gbit/s  SATA-3 device  is only able to
> transfer 6 Gbit/s  (a current SAS-4 reaches 22.5 Gbit/s)
> Do a short research on SAS vs SATA and then use a SAS SSD for comparison :)
>

The query being all read operations both drives should perform somewhat
similarly. Therefore, either the SAS drive has some special sauce to it
(a.k.a very fast built-in cache) or there is something else going on these
systems. Otherwise he shouldn't be stressing the 6 Gbit/s interface limit
with a single drive, be that the SATA or the SAS drive.

Neto, you have been suggested to provide a number of command outputs to
know more about your system. Testing the raw read throughput of both your
drives should be first on your list.

Cheers.

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

2018-01-15 3:04 GMT-08:00 Neto pr :
> 2018-01-14 19:09 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>>> > The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend?  Or post a
link from
>>> > https://explain.depesz.com/
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:36:02PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>>> I was not able to upload to the site, because I'm saving the execution
>>> plan in the database, and when I retrieve it, it loses the line breaks,
>>
>> That's why it's an issue for me, too..
>>
>>> > What OS/kernel are you using?  LVM?  filesystem?  I/O scheduler?
 partitions?
>>>
>>> See below the Disk FileSystem 
>>> root@hp2ml110deb:/# fdisk -l
>>> Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
>>>
>>> Disk /dev/sdb: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
>>> Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
>>> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>>> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
>>>

>> What about sdb partitions/FS?
>
> I used EXT4 filesystem in Debian SO.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>>> The DBMS and tablespace of users is installed in /dev/sdb  SSD.
>>
>> Is that also a temp_tablespace ?  Or are your hashes spilling to HDD
instead ?
>>
>
> How can I find out where my temp_tablesapce is?
> With the command \db+ (see below) does not show the location. But the
> DBMS I asked to install inside the SSD, but how can I find out the
> exact location of the temp_tablespace ?
>
>

> tpch40gnorssd=# \db+
>  List of tablespaces
> Name|  Owner   |Location| Access
> privileges | Options |  Size  | Description
>
+--++---+-++-
>  pg_default | postgres ||
>  | | 21 MB  |
>  pg_global  | postgres ||
>  | | 573 kB |
>  tblpgssd   | postgres | /media/ssd500gb/dados/pg101ssd |
>  | | 206 GB |
> (3 rows)
>
--
>

I checked that the temporary tablespace pg_default is on the SSD, because
when running show temp_tablespaces in psql returns empty, and by the
documentation,
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-client.html#GUC-TEMP-TABLESPACES
will be in the default directory, where I installed the DBMS in:
/media/ssd500gb/opt/pgv101norssd/data.

The servers where I executed the query with HDD SAS is not the same one
where I executed the query with SSD, but they are identical Server (HP
Proliant ML110), it has the same model and configuration, only the disks
that are not the same, see:

Server 1
- HDD SAS 15 Krpm - 320 GB (Location where O.S. Debian and Postgresql are
installed)

Server 2
- Samsung Evo SSD 500 GB (Location where Postgresql is Installed)
- HDD Sata 7500 Krpm - 1TB (Location where O.S Debian is installed)


>> Group Key: nation.n_name, (date_part(_year_::text,
(orders.o_orderdate)::timestamp without time zone))
>> Buffers: shared hit=3773802 read=7120852, temp read=3550293
written=3541542
>>
>> Are your SSD being used for anything else ?
>>
>> What about these?
>>
>>> > readahead?  blockdev --getra
>>
>
> About knowing if the SSD is being used by another process, I will
> still execute the command and send the result.
>
> But I can say that the SSD is only used by the DBMS.
> Explaining better, My server has an HDD and an SSD. The Debian OS is
> installed on the HDD and I installed the DBMS inside the SSD and the
> data tablespace also inside the SSD .
> The server is dedicated to the DBMS and when I execute the queries,
> nothing else is executed. I still can not understand how an HDD is
> faster than an SSD.
> I ran queries again on the SSD and the results were not good see:
>
> execution 1- 00:16:13
> execution 2- 00:25:30
> execution 3- 00:28:09
> execution 4- 00:24:33
> execution 5- 00:24:38
>
> Regards
> Neto
>
>
>
>
>>> > If you're running under linux, maybe you can just send the output of:
>>> > for a in /sys/block/sdX/queue/*; do echo "$a `cat $a`"; done
>>> > or: tail
/sys/block/sdX/queue/{minimum_io_size,optimal_io_size,read_ahead_kb,scheduler,rotational,max_sectors_kb,logical_block_size,physical_block_size}
>>
>>> > Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
>>> > time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
>>> >
>>> > Or: bonnie++ -f -n0
>>
>> Justin

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Justin Pryzby]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> > The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend?  Or post a link 
> > from
> > https://explain.depesz.com/

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:36:02PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> I was not able to upload to the site, because I'm saving the execution
> plan in the database, and when I retrieve it, it loses the line breaks,

That's why it's an issue for me, too..

> > What OS/kernel are you using?  LVM?  filesystem?  I/O scheduler?  
> > partitions?
> 
> See below the Disk FileSystem 
> root@hp2ml110deb:/# fdisk -l
> Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
> 
> Disk /dev/sdb: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
> Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> 
What about sdb partitions/FS?

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> The DBMS and tablespace of users is installed in /dev/sdb  SSD.

Is that also a temp_tablespace ?  Or are your hashes spilling to HDD instead ?

Group Key: nation.n_name, (date_part(_year_::text, 
(orders.o_orderdate)::timestamp without time zone))
Buffers: shared hit=3773802 read=7120852, temp read=3550293 written=3541542

Are your SSD being used for anything else ?

What about these?

> > readahead?  blockdev --getra

> > If you're running under linux, maybe you can just send the output of:
> > for a in /sys/block/sdX/queue/*; do echo "$a `cat $a`"; done
> > or: tail 
> > /sys/block/sdX/queue/{minimum_io_size,optimal_io_size,read_ahead_kb,scheduler,rotational,max_sectors_kb,logical_block_size,physical_block_size}

> > Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
> > time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K 
> > skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
> >
> > Or: bonnie++ -f -n0

Justin

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

2018-01-14 15:59 GMT-08:00 Neto pr :
> Thanks for the reply.
> I'll try upload the execution plan with Explain (analyse, buffer) for
> website:  https://explain.depesz.com/
>

Below is a new execution plan, with Analyze, BUFFERS. This time,
without changing anything in the configuration of the DBMS, I just
rebooted the DBMS, the time of 16 minutes was obtained, against the 26
minutes of another execution. But it still has not managed to exceed
the execution time in HDD SAS 15Krpm.
I was not able to upload to the site, because I'm saving the execution
plan in the database, and when I retrieve it, it loses the line
breaks, and the d site does not allow uploading.


--- Execution Plan with Buffers  executed on SSD
Stores.-

Finalize GroupAggregate  (cost=1588.33..15980046.69 rows=60150
width=66) (actual time=969248.287..973686.679 rows=175 loops=1)  Group
Key: nation.n_name, (date_part(_year_::text,
(orders.o_orderdate)::timestamp without time zone))  Buffers: shared
hit=1327602 read=2305013, temp read=1183857 written=1180940  ->
Gather Merge  (cost=1588.33..15977791.06 rows=120300 width=66)
(actual time=969222.164..973685.582 rows=525 loops=1)Workers
Planned: 2Workers Launched: 2Buffers: shared
hit=1327602 read=2305013, temp read=1183857 written=1180940->
Partial GroupAggregate  (cost=15821228.31..15962905.44 rows=60150
width=66) (actual time=941985.137..946403.344 rows=175 loops=3)
  Group Key: nation.n_name, (date_part(_year_::text,
(orders.o_orderdate)::timestamp without time zone))
Buffers: shared hit=3773802 read=7120852, temp read=3550293
written=3541542  ->  Sort  (cost=15821228.31..15838806.37
rows=7031225 width=57) (actual time=941954.595..943119.850
rows=4344197 loops=3)Sort Key: nation.n_name,
(date_part(_year_::text, (orders.o_orderdate)::timestamp without time
zone)) DESCSort Method: external merge  Disk:
320784kBBuffers: shared hit=3773802 read=7120852,
temp read=3550293 written=3541542->  Hash Join
(cost=4708859.28..14719466.13 rows=7031225 width=57) (actual
time=619996.638..933725.615 rows=4344197 loops=3)
Hash Cond: (lineitem.l_suppkey = supplier.s_suppkey)
   Buffers: shared hit=3773732 read=7120852, temp read=3220697
written=3211409  ->  Hash Join
(cost=4683017.71..14434606.65 rows=7071075 width=43) (actual
time=579893.395..926348.061 rows=4344197 loops=3)
  Hash Cond: (lineitem.l_orderkey = orders.o_orderkey)
   Buffers: shared hit=3758207 read=7108695, temp
read=3114271 written=3105025->  Hash
Join  (cost=1993687.71..11297331.33 rows=7071075 width=47) (actual
time=79741.803..805259.856 rows=4344197 loops=3)
   Hash Cond: ((lineitem.l_suppkey = partsupp.ps_suppkey)
AND (lineitem.l_partkey = partsupp.ps_partkey))
  Buffers: shared hit=1754251 read=5797780, temp
read=2369849 written=2366741  ->
Hash Join  (cost=273201.71..9157213.44 rows=7071075 width=45) (actual
time=5363.078..672302.517 rows=4344197 loops=3)
Hash Cond: (lineitem.l_partkey = part.p_partkey)
 Buffers: shared hit=325918
read=5027133, temp read=1742658 written=1742616
->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem
(cost=0.00..5861333.20 rows=15120 width=41) (actual
time=0.129..536226.436 rows=80004097 loops=3)
Buffers: shared hit=2 read=4861280
   ->  Hash  (cost=263921.00..263921.00
rows=565657 width=4) (actual time=5362.100..5362.100 rows=434469
loops=3)  Buckets:
131072  Batches: 8  Memory Usage: 2933kB
   Buffers: shared hit=325910 read=165853, temp
written=3327  ->  Seq
Scan on part  (cost=0.00..263921.00 rows=565657 width=4) (actual
time=0.025..5279.959 rows=434469 loops=3)
  Filter: ((p_name)::text ~~ _%orchid%_::text)
   Rows Removed by
Filter: 7565531
Buffers: shared hit=325910 read=165853
 ->  Hash  (cost=1052986.00..1052986.00 rows=3200 width=22)
(actual time=74231.061..74231.061 rows=3200 loops=3)
 Buckets: 65536  Batches: 512  Memory
Usage: 3941kBBuffers:
shared hit=1428311 read=770647, temp written=513846
->  Seq Scan on partsupp
(cost=0.00..1052986.00 rows=3200 width=22) (actual
time=0.037..66316.652 rows=3200 loops=3)
   Buffers: shared hit=1428311 read=770647
   ->  Hash  (cost=1704955.00..1704955.00
rows=6000 width=8) (actual 

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

2018-01-14 13:40 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44:00PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>>
>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
>> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
>>
>> I think maybe the execution plan is using more write operations, and so the
>> HDD SAS 15Krpm has been faster.
>
> The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend?  Or post a link from
> https://explain.depesz.com/
>
> To see if the query is causing many writes (due to dirty pages, sorts, etc),
> run with explain(analyze,buffers)
>
> But from what I could tell, your problems are here:
>
> ->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem  (cost=0.00..5861332.93 rows=15093 
> width=41) (actual TIME=3.494..842667.110 rows=80004097 loops=3)
> vs
> ->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem  (cost=0.00..5861333.40 rows=15140 
> width=41) (actual TIME=41.805..224438.909 rows=80004097 loops=3)
>
> ->  Seq Scan on partsupp (cost=0.00..1052983.08 rows=31999708 width=22) 
> (actual TIME=0.033..228828.149 rows=3200 loops=3)
> vs
> ->  Seq Scan on partsupp  (cost=0.00..1052934.38 rows=31994838 width=22) 
> (actual TIME=0.037..37865.003 rows=3200 loops=3)
>
> Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K 
> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
>
> Or: bonnie++ -f -n0
>
> What OS/kernel are you using?  LVM?  filesystem?  I/O scheduler?  partitions?
> readahead?  blockdev --getra

OS = Debian 8 64bits - 3.16.0-4

See below the Disk FileSystem 
root@hp2ml110deb:/# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 931.5 GiB, 1000204886016 bytes, 1953525168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: gpt
Disk identifier: 26F5EB21-30DB-44E4-B9E2-E8105846B6C4

Device  StartEndSectors   Size Type
/dev/sda1204810506231048576   512M EFI System
/dev/sda2 1050624 1937274879 1936224256 923.3G Linux filesystem
/dev/sda3  1937274880 1953523711   16248832   7.8G Linux swap

Disk /dev/sdb: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes


The DBMS and tablespace of users is installed in /dev/sdb  SSD.

> If you're running under linux, maybe you can just send the output of:
> for a in /sys/block/sdX/queue/*; do echo "$a `cat $a`"; done
> or: tail 
> /sys/block/sdX/queue/{minimum_io_size,optimal_io_size,read_ahead_kb,scheduler,rotational,max_sectors_kb,logical_block_size,physical_block_size}
>
> Justin

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Neto pr]

Thanks for the reply.
I'll try upload the execution plan with Explain (analyse, buffer) for
website:  https://explain.depesz.com/

I'm make an experiment for a scientific research and this is what I
find strange, explaining better, strange HDD performance far outweigh
the performance of an SSD.

Do you think that if you run a VACUMM FULL the performance with the
SSD will be better than a 15Krpm SAS HDD?

Best Regards
Neto
 

  https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail;
target="_blank">https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif;
alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
/>
Livre de vírus. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail;
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com.  




2018-01-14 19:40 GMT-02:00 Justin Pryzby :
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44:00PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>>
>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
>> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
>>
>> I think maybe the execution plan is using more write operations, and so the
>> HDD SAS 15Krpm has been faster.
>
> The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend?  Or post a link from
> https://explain.depesz.com/
>
> To see if the query is causing many writes (due to dirty pages, sorts, etc),
> run with explain(analyze,buffers)
>
> But from what I could tell, your problems are here:
>
> ->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem  (cost=0.00..5861332.93 rows=15093 
> width=41) (actual TIME=3.494..842667.110 rows=80004097 loops=3)
> vs
> ->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem  (cost=0.00..5861333.40 rows=15140 
> width=41) (actual TIME=41.805..224438.909 rows=80004097 loops=3)
>
> ->  Seq Scan on partsupp (cost=0.00..1052983.08 rows=31999708 width=22) 
> (actual TIME=0.033..228828.149 rows=3200 loops=3)
> vs
> ->  Seq Scan on partsupp  (cost=0.00..1052934.38 rows=31994838 width=22) 
> (actual TIME=0.037..37865.003 rows=3200 loops=3)
>
> Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K 
> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
>
> Or: bonnie++ -f -n0
>
> What OS/kernel are you using?  LVM?  filesystem?  I/O scheduler?  partitions?
> readahead?  blockdev --getra
>
> If you're running under linux, maybe you can just send the output of:
> for a in /sys/block/sdX/queue/*; do echo "$a `cat $a`"; done
> or: tail 
> /sys/block/sdX/queue/{minimum_io_size,optimal_io_size,read_ahead_kb,scheduler,rotational,max_sectors_kb,logical_block_size,physical_block_size}
>
> Justin

Re: HDD vs SSD without explanation

[Justin Pryzby]

On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44:00PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> Dear all
> 
> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
> used), is the  query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>
> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
>
> I think maybe the execution plan is using more write operations, and so the
> HDD SAS 15Krpm has been faster.

The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend?  Or post a link from
https://explain.depesz.com/

To see if the query is causing many writes (due to dirty pages, sorts, etc),
run with explain(analyze,buffers) 

But from what I could tell, your problems are here:

->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem  (cost=0.00..5861332.93 rows=15093 
width=41) (actual TIME=3.494..842667.110 rows=80004097 loops=3)
vs
->  Parallel Seq Scan on lineitem  (cost=0.00..5861333.40 rows=15140 
width=41) (actual TIME=41.805..224438.909 rows=80004097 loops=3)

->  Seq Scan on partsupp (cost=0.00..1052983.08 rows=31999708 width=22) (actual 
TIME=0.033..228828.149 rows=3200 loops=3)
vs
->  Seq Scan on partsupp  (cost=0.00..1052934.38 rows=31994838 width=22) 
(actual TIME=0.037..37865.003 rows=3200 loops=3)

Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) 
# set bs to optimal_io_size 

Or: bonnie++ -f -n0

What OS/kernel are you using?  LVM?  filesystem?  I/O scheduler?  partitions?
readahead?  blockdev --getra

If you're running under linux, maybe you can just send the output of:
for a in /sys/block/sdX/queue/*; do echo "$a `cat $a`"; done
or: tail 
/sys/block/sdX/queue/{minimum_io_size,optimal_io_size,read_ahead_kb,scheduler,rotational,max_sectors_kb,logical_block_size,physical_block_size}

Justin