That's about what I was getting for a 2 disk RAID 0 setup on a PE 2950. Here's bonnie++ numbers for the RAID10x4 and RAID0x2, unfortunately I only have the 1.93 numbers since this was before I got the advice to run with the earlier version of bonnie and larger file sizes, so I don't know how meaningful they are.
RAID 10x4 bash-2.05b$ bonnie++ -d bonnie -s 1000:8k Version 1.93c ------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 1000M 585 99 21705 4 28560 9 1004 99 812997 98 5436 454 Latency 14181us 81364us 50256us 57720us 1671us 1059ms Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- c -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 4712 10 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 4674 10 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ Latency 807ms 21us 36us 804ms 110us 36us 1.93c,1.93c, ,1,1155207445,1000M,,585,99,21705,4,28560,9,1004,99,812997,98,5436,454,1 6,,,,,4712,10,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,4674,10,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,14181us,81 364us,50256us,57720us,1671us,1059ms,807ms,21us,36us,804ms,110us,36us bash-2.05b$ RAID 0x2 bash-2.05b$ bonnie++ -d bonnie -s 1000:8k Version 1.93c ------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 1000M 575 99 131621 25 104178 26 1004 99 816928 99 6233 521 Latency 14436us 26663us 47478us 54796us 1487us 38924us Version 1.93c ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 4935 10 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 5198 11 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ Latency 738ms 32us 43us 777ms 24us 30us 1.93c,1.93c,beast.corp.lumeta.com,1,1155210203,1000M,,575,99,131621,25,1 04178,26,1004,99,816928,99,6233,521,16,,,,,4935,10,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,5 198,11,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,14436us,26663us,47478us,54796us,1487us,38924u s,738ms,32us,43us,777ms,24us,30us A RAID 5 configuration seems to outperform this on the PE 2950 though (at least in terms of raw read/write perf) If anyone's interested in some more detailed tests of the 2950, I might be able to reconfigure the raid for some tests next week before I start setting up the box for long term use, so I'm open to suggestions. See earlier posts in this thread for details about the hardware. Thanks, Bucky -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Lonergan Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Scott Marlowe Cc: Michael Stone; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgresql Performance on an HP DL385 and Steve, If this is an internal RAID1 on two disks, it looks great. Based on the random seeks though (578 seeks/sec), it looks like maybe it's 6 disks in a RAID10? - Luke On 8/16/06 7:10 PM, "Steve Poe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone, > > I wanted to follow-up on bonnie results for the internal RAID1 which is > connected to the SmartArray 6i. I believe this is the problem, but I am > not good at interepting the results. Here's an sample of three runs: > > scsi disc > array ,16G,47983,67,65492,20,37214,6,73785,87,89787,6,578.2,0,16,+++++, > +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++ > scsi disc > array ,16G,54634,75,67793,21,36835,6,74190,88,89314,6,579.9,0,16,+++++, > +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++ > scsi disc > array ,16G,55056,76,66108,20,36859,6,74108,87,89559,6,585.0,0,16,+++++, > +++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+++++,+++,+ > > This was run on the internal RAID1 on the outer portion of the discs > formatted at ext2. > > Thanks. > > Steve > > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:35 -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 10:15, Luke Lonergan wrote: >>> Mike, >>> >>> On 8/10/06 4:09 AM, "Michael Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 08:29:13PM -0700, Steve Poe wrote: >>>>> I tried as you suggested and my performance dropped by 50%. I went from >>>>> a 32 TPS to 16. Oh well. >>>> >>>> If you put data & xlog on the same array, put them on seperate >>>> partitions, probably formatted differently (ext2 on xlog). >>> >>> If he's doing the same thing on both systems (Sun and HP) and the HP >>> performance is dramatically worse despite using more disks and having faster >>> CPUs and more RAM, ISTM the problem isn't the configuration. >>> >>> Add to this the fact that the Sun machine is CPU bound while the HP is I/O >>> wait bound and I think the problem is the disk hardware or the driver >>> therein. >> >> I agree. The problem here looks to be the RAID controller. >> >> Steve, got access to a different RAID controller to test with? >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly