Обсуждение: quad or dual core Intel CPUs
I am about to pull the trigger on a new machine after analyzing some
discussions I posted here last year. I've been trying to spec out a reliable
and powerfull enough machine where I won't have to replace it for some time.
Currently I've been using a dual Xeon 3.06ghz with 4GB of ram and utilizing a
RAID 1+0 configuration over a total 6 SCSI disks asside from the OS partition.
We have about 10GB of data and will probably scale at about 1GB per month. We
currently average about 200 queries per second and the 15 minute load average
is about .30. I am running FreeBSD 6.1.
At the end of last year, I specced out a new machine to replace this box. At
that time, the quad core 2.66ghz were not available from my vendor and I was
not planning to go that route. Now that they are available, I am considering
the option. The main question here is whether FreeBSD 6.X and PostgreSQL 8.1
would be able to take advantage of the quad core and perform better than the
3.0Ghz dual core. The reason I ask is due to some conflicting benchmarking
results I see posted on the spec.org website.
Here is the full specification of the new box I hope to build and run FreeBSD
6.X and PostgreSQL on:
- SuperMicro Dual Xeon X7DBE+ motherboard
+ 2 x Quad Core X5355 2.66Ghz
OR
+ 2 x Dual Core 5160 3.0Ghz
- 8 x 1GB PC2-4200 fully buffered DIMM
- LSI MegaRAID SAS 8408E w/BBU 256MB
- 16 x 73GB SAS disk
So, question #1, to go dual core or quad core? Quad core in theory seems to
scale the machine's processing potential by almost a factor of two.
And lastly, up till now, I've only have experience configuring SCSI RAID
controllers. I believe this LSI MegaRAID unit has a dual channel setup, but
when it comes to SAS drives, I don't know what kind of flexibility this
provides. How should the disks be partitioned for maximum PostgreSQL
performance?
I'm thinking about keeping it simple assuming that the hot spare can only be
utilized one per channel leaving me only 14 disks to utilize.
1 RAID1 partition using 2 disks total for the OS
1 RAID1+0 using 12 disks total striping over 6.
If I am not able to utilize both channels to create a 12 disk RAID1+0 array,
then it might be better to create 2 seperate data partitions, one for
WAL/pg_xlog and the rest for the data store.
Please comment on any issues you may see with this box and my assumptions.
Also any FreeBSD kernel issues or tweaks you could recommend.
Sincerely,
Kenji
Hi Kenji, On 13-2-2007 20:46 Kenji Morishige wrote: > Here is the full specification of the new box I hope to build and run FreeBSD > 6.X and PostgreSQL on: > > - SuperMicro Dual Xeon X7DBE+ motherboard > + 2 x Quad Core X5355 2.66Ghz > OR > + 2 x Dual Core 5160 3.0Ghz > > - 8 x 1GB PC2-4200 fully buffered DIMM > > - LSI MegaRAID SAS 8408E w/BBU 256MB > > - 16 x 73GB SAS disk If this is in one of those 4U cases, make very, very sure it can properly exhaust all the heat generated and has more than adequate power supply. When going for a similar machine, we got a negative advice on such a set-up from a server vendor who built such machines themselves. Don't forget that the FB-dimms run pretty hot and they need sufficient cooling. As you can see on these pictures Fujitsu thought it necessary to add fan-ducts for the memory: http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/7 Our own Dell systems have similar ducts. But a third-party server builder we tested did not include those, and the machine ran very hot (I couldn't touch the bottom for more than a short time) in a not-too-good-ventilated, but mostly empty, server rack. Although that was a 2U machine, but it didn't include any disks. Currently we have had good experience with our new Dell 1950 (2x 5160, PC5300 FBD) combined with a Dell MD1000 SAS disk unit (15x 15k 36G disks) described in the second review linked below. HP offers similar options and there are probably several other suppliers who can build something like that too. Seperate SAS-JBOD disk units are available from other suppliers as well. > So, question #1, to go dual core or quad core? Quad core in theory seems to > scale the machine's processing potential by almost a factor of two. I can partially answer that question, but than for linux + postgresql 8.2. In that case, postgresql can take advantage of the extra core. See our review here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/661 This includes comparisons between the X5355 and 5160 with postgresql on the seventh page, here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/661/7 But be aware that there can be substantial and unexpected differences on this relatively new platform due to simply changing the OS, like we saw when going from linux 2.6.15 to 2.6.18, as you can see here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/2 Our benchmark has relatively little writing and a smallish dataset (fits in 4GB of memory), so I don't know how much use these benchmarks are for you. But the conclusion was that the extra processor power isn't fully available, possibly because there is less memory bandwidth per processor core and more communication overhead. Then again, in our test the dual quad core was faster than the dual dual core. > And lastly, up till now, I've only have experience configuring SCSI RAID > controllers. I believe this LSI MegaRAID unit has a dual channel setup, but > when it comes to SAS drives, I don't know what kind of flexibility this > provides. How should the disks be partitioned for maximum PostgreSQL > performance? > > I'm thinking about keeping it simple assuming that the hot spare can only be > utilized one per channel leaving me only 14 disks to utilize. In that Dell 1950 we use the Dell PERC5/e SAS-controller for the database, which is based on that same LSI controller, although it has 2 external sas connections (for 4 channels each). Afaik it supports global hot spares. But we use the full set of 15 disks as a 14+1 disk raid 5, so I haven't looked at that too well. For the OS we have a seperate PERC5/i "internal" raid controller with two internal disks. My colleague also tested several raid set-ups with that equipment, and we choose a raid5 for its slightly better read-performance. If you can make something of these dutch pages, you can have a look at those results here: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/test/122 Play around with the form at the bottom of the page to see some comparisons between several raid set-ups. The sas configurations are of course the ones with the "Fujitsu MAX3036RC 36GB" disks and "Dell PERC 5/E" controller. > If I am not able to utilize both channels to create a 12 disk RAID1+0 array, > then it might be better to create 2 seperate data partitions, one for > WAL/pg_xlog and the rest for the data store. I'm not too sure how you can connect your disks and controller to a SAS-expander (which you need to connect more than 8 disks to a controller). I believe it is possible to use a 24-port expander, allowing communication between the 16 disks and 8 ports of your controller. A SAS-expander comes normally with the enclosure/disk unit, but I have no idea about the details. Our own testing was done using just a single 4-port connector, which can handle 1.2GB/sec (afaik this B is for bytes) and we believe that's sufficient for our 15 disks. > Please comment on any issues you may see with this box and my assumptions. > Also any FreeBSD kernel issues or tweaks you could recommend. Have a very good look at your heat production and exhaust and power supply. It was one of the reasons we decided to use seperate enclosures, seperating the processors/memory from the big disk array. Best regards and good luck, Arjen van der Meijden
Kenji Morishige wrote: > > Please comment on any issues you may see with this box and my assumptions. > Also any FreeBSD kernel issues or tweaks you could recommend. > I would recommend posting to freebsd-hardware or freebsd-stable and asking if there are any gotchas with the X7DBE+ and 6.2 (for instance X7DBR-8+ suffers from an intermittent hang at boot... so can't hurt to ask!) Cheers Mark
Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > > But be aware that there can be substantial and unexpected differences on > this relatively new platform due to simply changing the OS, like we saw > when going from linux 2.6.15 to 2.6.18, as you can see here: > http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/2 Having upgraded to 2.6.18 fairly recently, I am *very* interested in what caused the throughput to drop in 2.6.18? I haven't done any benchmarking on my system to know if it affected my usage pattern negatively, but I am curious if anyone knows why this happened? -Dan
Dan, On 2/13/07, Dan Harris <fbsd@drivefaster.net> wrote: > Having upgraded to 2.6.18 fairly recently, I am *very* interested in > what caused the throughput to drop in 2.6.18? I haven't done any > benchmarking on my system to know if it affected my usage pattern > negatively, but I am curious if anyone knows why this happened? I think you misread the graph. PostgreSQL 8.2 seems to be approximately 20% faster with kernel 2.6.18 on the platforms tested (and using tweakers.net benchmark). -- Guillaume
Dan Harris wrote: > Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > >> But be aware that there can be substantial and unexpected differences >> on this relatively new platform due to simply changing the OS, like we >> saw when going from linux 2.6.15 to 2.6.18, as you can see here: >> http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/2 > > Having upgraded to 2.6.18 fairly recently, I am *very* interested in > what caused the throughput to drop in 2.6.18? I haven't done any > benchmarking on my system to know if it affected my usage pattern > negatively, but I am curious if anyone knows why this happened? I think you're reading the results backwards. PostgreSQL throughput increased, not decreased, by the upgrade. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> I am about to pull the trigger on a new machine after analyzing some > discussions I posted here last year. I've been trying to spec out a reliable > and powerfull enough machine where I won't have to replace it for some time. > Currently I've been using a dual Xeon 3.06ghz with 4GB of ram and utilizing a > RAID 1+0 configuration over a total 6 SCSI disks asside from the OS partition. > We have about 10GB of data and will probably scale at about 1GB per month. We > currently average about 200 queries per second and the 15 minute load average > is about .30. I am running FreeBSD 6.1. > > At the end of last year, I specced out a new machine to replace this box. At > that time, the quad core 2.66ghz were not available from my vendor and I was > not planning to go that route. Now that they are available, I am considering > the option. The main question here is whether FreeBSD 6.X and PostgreSQL 8.1 > would be able to take advantage of the quad core and perform better than the > 3.0Ghz dual core. The reason I ask is due to some conflicting benchmarking > results I see posted on the spec.org website. > > Here is the full specification of the new box I hope to build and run FreeBSD > 6.X and PostgreSQL on: > > - SuperMicro Dual Xeon X7DBE+ motherboard > + 2 x Quad Core X5355 2.66Ghz > OR > + 2 x Dual Core 5160 3.0Ghz > > - 8 x 1GB PC2-4200 fully buffered DIMM > > - LSI MegaRAID SAS 8408E w/BBU 256MB > > - 16 x 73GB SAS disk > > So, question #1, to go dual core or quad core? Quad core in theory seems to > scale the machine's processing potential by almost a factor of two. We recently migrated from a four way opteron @ 2 GHz with 8 GB to a four way woodcrest @ 3 GHz (HP DL380 G5) with 16 GB ram. I also upgraded FreeBSD from 6.0 to 6.2 and did a minor upgrade of postgresql from 7.4.9 to 7.4.12. The change was tremendous, the first few hours of after it went into production I had to doublecheck that our website worked, since the load was way below 1 whereas the load had been almost 100 during peak. I don't have any financial ties to HP but building a server from scratch may not be worth it, rather than spending time assemling all the different parts yourself I would suggest you get a server from one vendor who build a server according to your specs. The DL380 (also) has a 256 MB bbc controller, the nic works flawlessly with FreeBSD 6.2, all parts are well integrated, the frontbay can accomodate 8 146 GB SAS drives. This server is wellsuited as a postgresql-server. Approx. 200 reqest a sec. should be a problem unless the queries are heavy. regards Claus
Thanks Claus thats good news! I'm having a reputable vendor build the box and test it for me before delivering. The bottom line of your message, did you mean 'should be not a problem'? I wonder what the main reason for your improvement, your ram was increased by a factor of 2, but 4 way opteron vs 4 way woodcrest performance must not be that significant. -Kenji > We recently migrated from a four way opteron @ 2 GHz with 8 GB to a > four way woodcrest @ 3 GHz (HP DL380 G5) with 16 GB ram. I also > upgraded FreeBSD from 6.0 to 6.2 and did a minor upgrade of postgresql > from 7.4.9 to 7.4.12. The change was tremendous, the first few hours > of after it went into production I had to doublecheck that our website > worked, since the load was way below 1 whereas the load had been > almost 100 during peak. > > I don't have any financial ties to HP but building a server from > scratch may not be worth it, rather than spending time assemling all > the different parts yourself I would suggest you get a server from one > vendor who build a server according to your specs. > > The DL380 (also) has a 256 MB bbc controller, the nic works flawlessly > with FreeBSD 6.2, all parts are well integrated, the frontbay can > accomodate 8 146 GB SAS drives. This server is wellsuited as a > postgresql-server. > > Approx. 200 reqest a sec. should be a problem unless the queries are heavy. > > regards > Claus
>> Approx. 200 reqest a sec. should be a problem unless the queries are heavy. > > Thanks Claus thats good news! > I'm having a reputable vendor build the box and test it for me before > delivering. The bottom line of your message, did you mean 'should be not a > problem'? I wonder what the main reason for your improvement, your ram was > increased by a factor of 2, but 4 way opteron vs 4 way woodcrest performance > must not be that significant. Sorry, the line should read 'should *not* be a problem', pardon for the confusion. So 200 queries/s should be fine, probably won't make the server sweat. I'm not shure what attributed most to the decrease when the load went from approx. 100 during peak to less than 1! Since the db-server is such a vital part of our infrastructure, I was reluctant to upgrade it, while load was below 10. But in November and December - when we have our most busy time - our website slowed to a crawl, thus phasing a new server in was an easy decision. The woodcrest is a better performer compared to the current opteron, the ciss-disk-controller also has 256 MB cache compared to the 64 MB LSI-logic controller in the former db-server, FreeBSD 6.2 is also a better performer than 6.0, but I haven't done any benchmarking on the same hardware. regards Claus