On 08/25/2018 12:11 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> I have previously posted ZFS numbers for SmartOS and FreeBSD to this
> thread, although not with the exact same benchmark runs that Tomas did.
>
> I think the main purpose of running the benchmarks is to demonstrate
> that there is no significant performance regression with wal recycling
> disabled on a COW filesystem such as ZFS (which might just be intuitive
> for a COW filesystem). I've tried to be sure it is clear in the doc
> change with this patch that this tunable is only applicable to COW
> filesystems. I do not think the benchmarks will be able to recreate the
> problematic performance state that was originally described in Dave's
> email thread here:
>
>
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w%40mail.gmail.com#CACukRjO7DJvub8e2AijOayj8BfKK3XXBTwu3KKARiTr67M3E3w@mail.gmail.com
>
I agree - the benchmarks are valuable both to show improvement and lack
of regression. I do have some numbers from LVM/ext4 (with snapshot
recreated every minute, to trigger COW-like behavior, and without the
snapshots), and from ZFS (on Linux, using zfsonlinux 0.7.9 on kernel
4.17.17).
Attached are PDFs with summary charts, more detailed results are
available at
https://bitbucket.org/tvondra/wal-recycle-test-xeon/src/master/
lvm/ext4 (no snapshots)
-----------------------
This pretty much behaves like plain ex4, at least for scales 200 and
2000. I don't have results for scale 8000, because the test ran out of
disk space (I've used part of the device for snapshots, and it was
enough to trigger the disk space issue).
lvm/ext4 (snapshots)
---------------------
On the smallest scale (200), there's no visible difference. On scale
2000 disabling WAL reuse gives about 10% improvement (21468 vs. 23517
tps), although it's not obvious from the chart. On the largest scale
(6000, to prevent the disk space issues) the improvement is about 10%
again, but it's much clearer.
zfs (Linux)
-----------
On scale 200, there's pretty much no difference. On scale 2000, the
throughput actually decreased a bit, by about 5% - from the chart it
seems disabling the WAL reuse somewhat amplifies impact of checkpoints,
for some reason.
I have no idea what happened at the largest scale (8000) - on master
there's a huge drop after ~120 minutes, which somewhat recovers at ~220
minutes (but not fully). Without WAL reuse there's no such drop,
although there seems to be some degradation after ~220 minutes (i.e. at
about the same time the master partially recovers. I'm not sure what to
think about this, I wonder if it might be caused by almost filling the
disk space, or something like that. I'm rerunning this with scale 600.
I'm also not sure how much can we extrapolate this to other ZFS configs
(I mean, this is a ZFS on a single SSD device, while I'd generally
expect ZFS on multiple devices, etc.).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services