4 ms·

For comparison, I ran this on a $80/mo OVH dedicated server (SP-32 Server - E3-1270v6 - 32GB - SoftRaid 2x450GB SSD NVMe) $ sudo su postgres $ createdb ben

For comparison, I ran this on a $80/mo OVH dedicated server (SP-32 Server - E3-1270v6 - 32GB - SoftRaid 2x450GB SSD NVMe) $ sudo su postgres $ createdb bench_test $ pgbench -i -s 10 bench_test $ pgbench -c 10 -j 2 -T 3600 -P 60 bench_test starting vacuum...end. progress: 60.0 s, 9192.5 tps, lat 1.088 ms stddev 0.924

elamje 8y ago
So the performance was lower on the server than the pi?
- MuffinFlavored 8y ago
  No. The article claims about ~200 TPS. I was able to pull ~9k TPS.
- RexM 8y ago
  Not sure how you're seeing that. From the article it says the incremental reporting (every 60 seconds) were: > progress: 540.0 s, 171.8 tps, lat 55.105 ms stddev 946.851 > progress: 600.0 s, 24.6 tps, lat 435.693 ms stddev 2945.727 > progress: 660.0 s, 405.8 tps, lat 24.108 ms stddev 134.692 So they were getting between 24.6 and 405.8 transactions per second. On the server, he's seeing: > progress: 60.0 s, 9192.5 tps, lat 1.088 ms stddev 0.924 So the server is doing 9192.5 transactions per second. The test wasn't run as long, but the server is showing much lower latency and standard deviation, as well.
blyat 8y ago
More OVH numbers using your same pgbenches. I've got a $99/mo GAM1 - Intel i7-7700K NO OC - 4C/8T - 4.2GHz - 64GB - NO SoftRAID (using ESXi) 2x450GB NVMe running 3 VMs. Two VMs are using < 50 MHz, the other is using 30% of the CPU for an empty Minecraft server. With the Minecraft server on: progress: 60.0 s, 6956.5 tps, lat 1.437 ms stddev 1.485 With the Minecraft server off: progress: 60.0 s, 7275.5 tps, lat 1.374 ms stddev 1.975 Looks like not having SoftRaid is killing me. I wish I could test with it on so I can see the comparison of the E3 vs the 7700K, but I would need to re-image. For fun, a random $5 lowest tier Digital Ocean droplet running a TeamSpeak server (which is using about .07% CPU): progress: 60.0 s, 1507.3 tps, lat 6.631 ms stddev 5.809 And for even more fun, WSL running on my personal/WFH rig - i7-7820X @ 4.8GHz OC, 1TB 950 Pro NVME, 32GB RAM (I let this one run a bit longer as WSL has performance issues, was curious if I would see variance): progress: 60.0 s, 1172.4 tps, lat 8.516 ms stddev 6.017 progress: 120.0 s, 1271.3 tps, lat 7.863 ms stddev 4.817 progress: 180.0 s, 1274.0 tps, lat 7.849 ms stddev 4.943 progress: 240.0 s, 1266.1 tps, lat 7.896 ms stddev 4.875 progress: 300.0 s, 1239.2 tps, lat 8.069 ms stddev 5.211 progress: 360.0 s, 1213.1 tps, lat 8.242 ms stddev 5.447 Ouch! A $3k rig gets outperformed by a $5 DO box.
- MuffinFlavored 8y ago
  Very weird. Can you test a more expensive DO box, please? I had to move to OVH from DO because the performance was so crap. My iMac was smoking the more expensive DO servers.
  - blyat 8y ago
    Tried the lowest CPU optimized and the 3rd highest for kicks: $40/mo - 4 GB Memory / 25 GB Disk / NYC1 - Ubuntu 18.04.2 x64 progress: 60.0 s, 3295.3 tps, lat 3.034 ms stddev 1.906 progress: 120.0 s, 3384.4 tps, lat 2.955 ms stddev 2.341 progress: 180.0 s, 3294.9 tps, lat 3.035 ms stddev 2.384 progress: 240.0 s, 3025.3 tps, lat 3.305 ms stddev 2.158 progress: 300.0 s, 3158.5 tps, lat 3.166 ms stddev 2.435 progress: 360.0 s, 3097.8 tps, lat 3.228 ms stddev 3.078 $480/mo - 64 GB Memory / 400 GB Disk / NYC3 - Ubuntu 18.04.2 x64 progress: 60.0 s, 4114.9 tps, lat 2.429 ms stddev 7.033 progress: 120.0 s, 4143.9 tps, lat 2.414 ms stddev 6.656 progress: 180.0 s, 3845.5 tps, lat 2.598 ms stddev 7.774 progress: 240.0 s, 4324.4 tps, lat 2.314 ms stddev 7.129 progress: 300.0 s, 3892.1 tps, lat 2.569 ms stddev 8.179 progress: 360.0 s, 4071.5 tps, lat 2.457 ms stddev 7.833 Doesn't look like they scale too well, unfortunately.
    - MuffinFlavored 8y ago
      I'm surprised DO is killing it as hard as they are when OVH has dedicated servers for comparable prices and 2x the performance. Are you able to run pgbench against their new Postgres hosted instances?
      - MuffinFlavored 8y ago
        I did it myself. $5 NYC1 droplet with pg-bench hitting a $480/mo NYC1 Postgres cluster: progress: 60.0 s, 2859.9 tps, lat 3.492 ms stddev 3.421 Yikes.
altmind 8y ago
I tried to replicate this benchmark on threadripper 2950x, 16 cores, 32gb 3000mhz 14cl, samsung 860 nvme, XFS. I was never able to achive more than 3100 tps, even with -march=native -O3 -flto, large wal and shared_buffers, without selinux and THP - I was always bottlenecked by 1 progres process staying in IOWait. I moved data directory to ramdisk and got: [pgbench -c10 -j 2]: progress: 60.0 s, 26819.3 tps, lat 0.371 ms stddev 0.119. with LA of mere 4. [pgbench -c30 -j 2]: progress: 60.0 s, 41572.7 tps, lat 0.720 ms stddev 0.390 How do you guys get this crazy performance? Could this be that your RAID fsyncs are not really syncing?
- MuffinFlavored 8y ago
  I think you're misreading your results lol your -c30 is 41.5k your -c10 is 26.89k, which smokes my 9k edit: I just misread that and see you moved it to RAMdisk. What would you like me to do to prove the test is fast because of the SOFTRaid?
  - altmind 8y ago
    maybe you can do fio write+sync benchmark? http://uditagarwal.in/index.php/2018/05/19/comparing-io-benchmarks-fio-iozone-and-bonnie/ http://uditagarwal.in/index.php/2018/05/19/comparing-io-benc...

elamje 8y ago

So the performance was lower on the server than the pi?

MuffinFlavored 8y ago
No. The article claims about ~200 TPS. I was able to pull ~9k TPS.
RexM 8y ago
Not sure how you're seeing that. From the article it says the incremental reporting (every 60 seconds) were: > progress: 540.0 s, 171.8 tps, lat 55.105 ms stddev 946.851 > progress: 600.0 s, 24.6 tps, lat 435.693 ms stddev 2945.727 > progress: 660.0 s, 405.8 tps, lat 24.108 ms stddev 134.692 So they were getting between 24.6 and 405.8 transactions per second. On the server, he's seeing: > progress: 60.0 s, 9192.5 tps, lat 1.088 ms stddev 0.924 So the server is doing 9192.5 transactions per second. The test wasn't run as long, but the server is showing much lower latency and standard deviation, as well.

blyat 8y ago

More OVH numbers using your same pgbenches. I've got a $99/mo GAM1 - Intel i7-7700K NO OC - 4C/8T - 4.2GHz - 64GB - NO SoftRAID (using ESXi) 2x450GB NVMe running 3 VMs. Two VMs are using < 50 MHz, the other is using 30% of the CPU for an empty Minecraft server. With the Minecraft server on: progress: 60.0 s, 6956.5 tps, lat 1.437 ms stddev 1.485 With the Minecraft server off: progress: 60.0 s, 7275.5 tps, lat 1.374 ms stddev 1.975 Looks like not having SoftRaid is killing me. I wish I could test with it on so I can see the comparison of the E3 vs the 7700K, but I would need to re-image. For fun, a random $5 lowest tier Digital Ocean droplet running a TeamSpeak server (which is using about .07% CPU): progress: 60.0 s, 1507.3 tps, lat 6.631 ms stddev 5.809 And for even more fun, WSL running on my personal/WFH rig - i7-7820X @ 4.8GHz OC, 1TB 950 Pro NVME, 32GB RAM (I let this one run a bit longer as WSL has performance issues, was curious if I would see variance): progress: 60.0 s, 1172.4 tps, lat 8.516 ms stddev 6.017 progress: 120.0 s, 1271.3 tps, lat 7.863 ms stddev 4.817 progress: 180.0 s, 1274.0 tps, lat 7.849 ms stddev 4.943 progress: 240.0 s, 1266.1 tps, lat 7.896 ms stddev 4.875 progress: 300.0 s, 1239.2 tps, lat 8.069 ms stddev 5.211 progress: 360.0 s, 1213.1 tps, lat 8.242 ms stddev 5.447 Ouch! A $3k rig gets outperformed by a $5 DO box.

MuffinFlavored 8y ago
Very weird. Can you test a more expensive DO box, please? I had to move to OVH from DO because the performance was so crap. My iMac was smoking the more expensive DO servers.
- blyat 8y ago
  Tried the lowest CPU optimized and the 3rd highest for kicks: $40/mo - 4 GB Memory / 25 GB Disk / NYC1 - Ubuntu 18.04.2 x64 progress: 60.0 s, 3295.3 tps, lat 3.034 ms stddev 1.906 progress: 120.0 s, 3384.4 tps, lat 2.955 ms stddev 2.341 progress: 180.0 s, 3294.9 tps, lat 3.035 ms stddev 2.384 progress: 240.0 s, 3025.3 tps, lat 3.305 ms stddev 2.158 progress: 300.0 s, 3158.5 tps, lat 3.166 ms stddev 2.435 progress: 360.0 s, 3097.8 tps, lat 3.228 ms stddev 3.078 $480/mo - 64 GB Memory / 400 GB Disk / NYC3 - Ubuntu 18.04.2 x64 progress: 60.0 s, 4114.9 tps, lat 2.429 ms stddev 7.033 progress: 120.0 s, 4143.9 tps, lat 2.414 ms stddev 6.656 progress: 180.0 s, 3845.5 tps, lat 2.598 ms stddev 7.774 progress: 240.0 s, 4324.4 tps, lat 2.314 ms stddev 7.129 progress: 300.0 s, 3892.1 tps, lat 2.569 ms stddev 8.179 progress: 360.0 s, 4071.5 tps, lat 2.457 ms stddev 7.833 Doesn't look like they scale too well, unfortunately.
  - MuffinFlavored 8y ago
    I'm surprised DO is killing it as hard as they are when OVH has dedicated servers for comparable prices and 2x the performance. Are you able to run pgbench against their new Postgres hosted instances?
    - MuffinFlavored 8y ago
      I did it myself. $5 NYC1 droplet with pg-bench hitting a $480/mo NYC1 Postgres cluster: progress: 60.0 s, 2859.9 tps, lat 3.492 ms stddev 3.421 Yikes.

altmind 8y ago

I tried to replicate this benchmark on threadripper 2950x, 16 cores, 32gb 3000mhz 14cl, samsung 860 nvme, XFS. I was never able to achive more than 3100 tps, even with -march=native -O3 -flto, large wal and shared_buffers, without selinux and THP - I was always bottlenecked by 1 progres process staying in IOWait. I moved data directory to ramdisk and got: [pgbench -c10 -j 2]: progress: 60.0 s, 26819.3 tps, lat 0.371 ms stddev 0.119. with LA of mere 4. [pgbench -c30 -j 2]: progress: 60.0 s, 41572.7 tps, lat 0.720 ms stddev 0.390 How do you guys get this crazy performance? Could this be that your RAID fsyncs are not really syncing?

MuffinFlavored 8y ago
I think you're misreading your results lol your -c30 is 41.5k your -c10 is 26.89k, which smokes my 9k edit: I just misread that and see you moved it to RAMdisk. What would you like me to do to prove the test is fast because of the SOFTRaid?
- altmind 8y ago
  maybe you can do fio write+sync benchmark? http://uditagarwal.in/index.php/2018/05/19/comparing-io-benchmarks-fio-iozone-and-bonnie/ http://uditagarwal.in/index.php/2018/05/19/comparing-io-benc...