Re: PostgreSQL performance on FreeBSD

Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]> Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:21:37 +0300

Newsgroups	gmane.os.freebsd.performance
Message-ID	<20140628102137.GA93733__48314.4040489153$1403950917$gmane$org@kib.kiev.ua>

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 12:08:39PM +0200, Palle Girgensohn wrote:
> 
> 
> 27 jun 2014 kl. 18:34 skrev Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]>:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:57:53AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 27, 2014 8:56:13 am Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I did some measurements and hacks to see about the performance and
> >>> scalability of PostgreSQL 9.3 on FreeBSD, sponsored by The FreeBSD
> >>> Foundation.
> >>> 
> >>> The results are described in https://kib.kiev.ua/kib/pgsql_perf.pdf.
> >>> The uncommitted patches, referenced in the article, are available as
> >>> https://kib.kiev.ua/kib/pig1.patch.txt
> >>> https://kib.kiev.ua/kib/patch-2
> >> 
> >> Did you run the same benchmark on the same hardware with any other OS's to 
> >> compare results?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > FWIW, before the failing after the 30 clients is corrected, I do not
> > think it is much interesting to do such comparision.
> 
> This is great work!
> 
> Does anybody know how far back in FreeBSD versions using posix semaphore instead of sysv would make a difference?  It seems we need a rather current version? 8.x did not support it at all, at some point at lest, and in 9 it was buggy. I could add he patch-2 to the port, but I reckon it needs a conditional based on FreeBSD version?
> 
I recommend to add it as an option.  The currently supported versions
of stable/9 and higher have new posix semaphores implementation.
The stable/8 also has posix semaphores, but there it is kernel-based
interface, I do not plan to evaluate it in any way.


> The clang bug should go upstreams, right?
I believe there is already some activity about it.  I do not follow
clang development.

> 
> I have seen similar curves, presented by Greg Smith (PostgreSQL
> hacker) where he concluded that there is no point in running more
> than 50 concurrent connections. This was for Linux. In your measures,
> the knee is at 30. That's said, FreeBSD could and should do better,
> but probably there is a limit where there will be a knee in the graph
> and performance will drop. It should be more than 30, though, as you
> rightly commented.
>
> Do you any ideas to pursue this further apart from complicated
> rewrites like DragonFly?
>
I do.

The scope of the current work was done to obtain understanding where do we stay
and, if possible, evaluate ideas, possibly in the hackish way. I hope
and almost sure that this will be continued, but cannot provide any time
estimation.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)