Hi Chris, here are my results: m1.small running Ubuntu Intrepid: real 1m3.049s user 0m25.040s sys 0m2.240s
c1.medium instance: real 0m14.752s user 0m23.990s sys 0m2.220s In practice, the c1.medium seemed to run my ruby scripts a bit faster, giving a thoughput of about 0.98 MB/s, or 730 docs/s. I thought the m1.small instance was still dual-core; if it's a single-core machine then that at least partly explains why running a bunch of load scripts on the same box as CouchDB would be so slow. Thoughts? Is this the performance I should expect? Thanks. -Tom On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Tom Nichols <[email protected]> wrote: >> So I did a rough calculation and it looks like I'm getting less than >> 1MB/s throughput in CouchDB -- >> >> 3072 MB total / 6900 sec = 0.445 MB/s >> >> So if the disk throughput is ~20 to 30 MB/s then the bottleneck is >> somewhere in the database. It's obviously not going to be anywhere >> close to raw disk I/O speeds but this still seems incredibly slow. >> Granted, I'm using a small instance... I'll try a c1.medium and see >> if the results are drastically different. >> > > Can you try running this benchmark script and see what you get for > insert performance: > > http://gist.github.com/79279 > >> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Jason Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Tom Nichols wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, I have some questions about insert performance. >>>> >>>> I have a single CouchDB 0.9.0 node running on small EC2 instance. I >>>> attached a huge EBS volume to it and mounted it where CouchDB's data >>>> files are stored. I fired up about ruby scripts running inserts and >>>> after a weekend I only have about 30GB/ 12M rows of data... Which >>>> seems small. 'top' tells me that my CPU is only about 30% utilized. >>>> >>>> Any idea what I might be doing wrong? I pretty much just followed >>>> these instructions: >>>> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Getting_started_with_Amazon_EC2 >>> >>> Hi, Tom. I believe I read somewhere before that the smallest EC2 instances >>> have a slower and/or higher-latency connection to EBS, so you might want to >>> consider a large instance, or maybe even a high-memory small instance and >>> see whether you get better "hardware" performance. >>> >>> Although strangely, when googling it, the first article I found says that >>> their benchmarks found no difference between EBS or even the ephemeral >>> filesystem. >>> >>> http://www.paessler.com/blog/2009/04/07/prtg-7/monitoring-cloud-performance-with-prtg-comparing-disk-speed-for-instance-stores-and-ebs-volumes-on-amazon-ec2/ >>> >>> On the other hand, here is a forum posting and a random benchmark indicating >>> that more expensive instances get better throughput: >>> >>> http://developer.amazonwebservices.com/connect/message.jspa?messageID=125197 >>> http://blog.getasysadmin.com/2009/02/mysql-benchmarks-using-amazon-ec2.html >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Smith >>> Proven Corporation >>> Bangkok, Thailand >>> http://www.proven-corporation.com >>> >> > > > > -- > Chris Anderson > http://jchrisa.net > http://couch.io >
