Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Postgres-xc-developers] A question on DBT1 performance
|
From: xiong w. <wan...@gm...> - 2010-11-25 05:25:16
|
Dears,
I am really appreciated your response.
Here is the basic information about my test.
My configure on DBT1 as follows:
[appServer]
#dbconnection-connection from 1 dbdriver to 1 backend, with 4 loaders, each
of the 5 coords receives 40 connections
10
#transaction_queue_size
1500
#transaction_array_size
1500
[dbdriver]
#items
1000
#customers
28800
#eu
1500
#eu/min
1000
#mean think_time
0.1
#run_duration in seconds
1200
#access mode access with access_direct or access_appServer
access_appServer
#access clean of order table with access_clean if cleanup, by default
disactivated if let empty
access_clean
The results by sar as follows:
Method1:
*coordinator/datanode 1:*
CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
Average: all 58.90 0.00 23.61 0.81 0.00 16.69**
*coordinator/datanode 2:*
CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
Average: all 64.19 0.00 28.67 0.55 0.00 6.58
Method2:
*coordinator/datanode 1:*
CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
Average: all 59.35 0.00 25.39 0.47 0.00 14.79
*coordinator/datanode 2:*
CPU %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle
Average: all 57.71 0.00 24.56 0.55 0.00 17.18
The average results by DBT1 as follows:
Method1:
*loader 1:*
1356.6 bogotransactions per second**
*loader 2:*
1843.7 bogotransactions per second
Method2:
*loader 1:*
757.4 bogotransactions per second**
*loader 2:*
779.3 bogotransactions per second
It's obvious that there is a big difference between Method1 and Method2. I
am courious about why.
Thanks again.
Regards,
Benny
2010/11/24 Koichi Suzuki <ko...@in...>
> Hi, Xiong;
>
> Could you tell me CPU and I/O usage you can measure by sar? I'm afraid
> load balance is not good in Method 2. How many backend did you use in each
> coordinator? Did you have any warning that connection overflew in data
> nodes?
Also, how long warm-up did you have?
>
> I'll let you know our configuration (sorry please let me have a bit).
>
> Regards;
> ---
> Koichi Suzuki
>
>
> (2010年11月24日 14:40), xiong wang wrote:
>
>> Hi Mason,
>> I tested it by 5 PCs.
>> The enviroment as follows:
>> 2 PCs, one datanode and one coordinator together on each of them,
>> GTM is on another PC,
>> 2 Loaders are on other 2 PCs.
>> Network 1G.
>> I tested Postgres-XC in two methods as follows:
>> Method 1.
>> loader -------- coordinator & datanode
>> \
>> GTM
>> /
>> loader -------- coordinator & datanode
>> Method 2.
>> loader-------- coordinator & datanode
>> \ / \
>> \ / \
>> /\ GTM
>> / \ /
>> / \ /
>> loader -------- coordinator & datanode
>> The DBT1 test results in these two methods are very different. Method 1
>> is much better than Method 2. I don't know why.
>> If I test Postgres-XC in Method 1, the DBT1 performance is close to what
>> the document declares. If I test it in Method 2, the result is much
>> worse than what the document writes. Could you tell me why the two
>> methods have so much effect on the DBT1 performace.
>> Thanks,
>> Regards,
>> Benny
>> >How much worse?
>> >How many physical servers are in each configuration? How is each server
>> >configured in each, with how many data nodes? What kind of network?
>> >Gigabit?
>> >Or was everything on one system? With virtual machines or without and
>> >just using different ports?
>> >Are there errors in the log file (connection limits hit)?
>> >Regards,
>> >Mason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& Earn a Chance To Win $500!
>> Tap into the largest installed PC base& get more eyes on your game by
>> optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
>> Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Postgres-xc-developers mailing list
>> Pos...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/postgres-xc-developers
>>
>
>
|
