Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>
From: "Erik Rijkers" <er@xs4all.nl>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-04-22T18:39:14Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, April 18, 2010 13:01, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> OK, I'll put a spinlock around access to the head of the array. > > v2 patch attached > knownassigned_sortedarray.v2.diff applied to cvs HEAD (2010.04.21 22:36) I have done a few smaller tests (scale 500, clients 1, 20): init: pgbench -h /tmp -p 6565 -U rijkers -i -s 500 replicas 4x primary, clients 1: scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 11496.372655 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 11580.141685 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 11478.294747 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 11741.432016 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 4x standby, clients 1: scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 727.217672 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 785.431011 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 825.291817 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 1 tps = 868.107638 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 1 -T 900 -j 1 4x primary, clients 20: scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 34963.054102 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 34818.985407 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 34964.545013 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 34959.210687 pgbench -p 6565 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 4x standby, clients 20: scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 1099.808192 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 905.926703 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 943.531989 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 scale: 500 clients: 20 tps = 1082.215913 pgbench -p 6566 -n -S -c 20 -T 900 -j 1 This is the same behaviour (i.e. extreme slow standby) that I saw earlier (and which caused the original post, btw). In that earlier instance, the extreme slowness disappeared later, after many hours maybe even days (without bouncing either primary or standby). I have no idea what could cause this; is no one else is seeing this ? (if I have time I'll repeat on other hardware in the weekend) any comment is welcome... Erik Rijkers