Hi,
The tests were made without the -s parameter, (so 1 is assumed). I'm running
the numbers
again on CentOS, with the optimized config and I'll test also different
scale values. I also will be able
to repeat the test again in FreeBSD with ZFS with the new options and
different scale,
but probably I won't repeat the UFS tests. I'll post the data when I finnish
the tests.
Thanks for your feedback,
João Pinheiro
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Joao,
>
> Wow, thanks for doing this!
>
> In general, your tests seem to show that there isn't a substantial
> penalty for using ZFS as of version 8.0.
>
> If you have time for more tests, I'd like to ask you for a few more
> tweaks:
>
> (1) change the following settings according to conventional wisdom:
> wal_buffers = 8MB
> effective_cache_size = 9GB
> checkpoint_segments = 32
> on ZFS only: full_page_writes=off
>
> (2) What scale were you using for the pgbench database? I didn't see it
> in the e-mail. It would be worth testing:
> s = 10 (small database, in memory)
> s = 500 (7GB, ram mostly full)
> s = 1000 (14GB, slightly larger than ram)
> s = 3000 (43GB, much larger than ram)
>
> If you were only testing a small size in your runs, then the only
> Filesystem behavoir you were testing was the transaction log.
>
> (3) Try a ZFS 128K record size
>
> (4) Centos/Ext3 appears to have had better staying power with high
> numbers of clients. Can you continue testing with 50, 100 and 200
> clients on that combination? And with data=writeback,noatime on Ext3?
>
> --
> -- Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://www.pgexperts.com
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Benchmark-with-FreeBSD-8.0-and-pgbench-tp28569544p28570856.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.