db-14: tales of the bunker - 2005 gus björklund, progress software corporation john harlow,...
TRANSCRIPT
DB-14: Tales of the Bunker - 2005
Gus Björklund, Progress Software Corporation
John Harlow, Bravepoint, Inc.
Dan Foreman, Bravepoint, Inc.
Rich Banville, Progress Software Corporation
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation3DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Goals of the Bunker Test
Find the optimal way to run Progress® on Linux
Test various ideas and theoriesHave funBunker 2005:
• Pre-release 10.1A• 64-bit AMD• Performance of Utilities• Investigate “coma” problem• Network speed effects
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation5DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Bunker 2005 Team
Gus Björklund, Wizard, Progress Software• Progress User since 1989
John Harlow, President of BravePoint• Progress User since 1984
Dan Foreman• Progress User since 1984
Rich Banville, Fellow, Progress Software• Progress User since 1993
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation7DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
The ATM Benchmark
Simulates teller machine transactions• deposit or withdrawal• heavy database update workload
Each transaction• does 3 fetches, 3 updates, 1 create
– retrieve and update account, branch, and teller rows– create a history row
Run “n” transaction generators• concurrently• for fixed time period• count total number of transactions performed
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation8DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Test Database (logical)
Table Number of Rows
Account 80,000,000 (100 bytes each)
Teller 80,000 (100 bytes each)
Branch 8,000 (100 bytes each)
History add 1 per transaction (50 bytes each)
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation9DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Test Database (physical)
Total size 12 gigabytes (data)
Data extent size 2,000,000 (2 GB)
Data extent count 6
Data block size 4096 bytes
Rows per block 64
Data Areas 1, Type II
Data cluster size 512 blocks (2 megabytes)
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation10DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Test Database (other info)
Account table data 9.2 gigabytes
Branch table data 922 kilobytes
Teller table data 9.3 megabytes
Indexes 691 megabytes
RM blocks 2,669,712
Index blocks 178,463
Free blocks 150,682
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation12DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Server 1: hostname “uniblab”
Operating System SuSE LinuxEnterprise Server 9
Cpus 2 x 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon
Motherboard IBM xSeries
Memory 4 gigabytes
Disk drives on controller 6 x n GB 10,000 rpm USCSI
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation13DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Server 3: hostname “hal”
Operating System SuSE Linux 10.0
Cpus 2 x 2.4 GHz Intel Xeon
Memory 2 gigabytes
Disk drives on motherboard 1 x n GB 7200 rpm SATA
Disk drives on controller 6 x n GB 7200 rpm SATA
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation14DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Server 3: hostname “jumbo”
Operating System SuSE Linux 10.0
Cpus 2 x AMD 64-bit 2.0 GHzDual Core
Motherboard Asus K8N-DL
Disk controller 3Ware 9500S-8
Memory 6 gigabytes
Disk drives on motherboard 2 x 160 GB Maxtor7200 rpm Ultra IDE
Disk drives on controller 8 x 164 GB Hitachi Deskstar7200 rpm SATA II
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation16DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Bunker Network Components
3 server machines
Netgear GS 105 Gigabit switch
SMC Barricade WAP
LinkSys WVC11b “bunker cam”
Various laptops running• Windoze• Linux• Mac OS X 10.3
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation17DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Bunker Network (partial)
hal uniblab jumbo
gigabit switch
wap bunker Cam
Internetrouter
laptops
servers
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation20DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Lessons from Past Bunkers
Type II Data Areas are fasterDon’t use Reiser File SystemUse EXT3 or XFS File SystemDon’t use the Anticipatory Scheduler
• Deadline or CFQ is better
2.6 Kernel is faster than 2.4 KernelFor RAID 10, the Largest Possible Stripe Size was
always the fastest, both Software & Hardware Striping
Very good performance at low cost
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation21DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
This Year’s (October 2005)Bunker Results
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation22DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Setup Results
db load time 30 minutes
db load rate 2.7 million rows per minute
dbanalysis 3 min 55 sec
idxbuild (-threads 1) 8 min 54 sec
idxbuild scratch 1,129,764 KB
prorest (from disk) 9 minutes
Database is about 11 gigabytes
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation23DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Baseline Server Configuration
Data extents on striped array, BI log on own diskBI cluster size: 16384BI blocksize: 16Server options:
– -n 200 -L 10240– -B 64000– -spin 50000– -bibufs 32
Page writers: 4BI writer: yesAI writer: no
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation24DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Linux I/O schedulers - 64-bit AMD SuSE 10
183
872
0
200
400
600
800
1000
CFQ deadline
thro
ugh
put
(tps)
What do we learn from this?
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation25DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Dump/Load
-index 0 Option on Binary Dump• Excellent Performance Improvement• But order of records may not be what you want
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation26DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Dump/Load with -RO
OpenEdge® 10 -RO: Faster than V9• V9 with -RO: faster than without
OpenEdge 10 with -RO: performance same as without
OpenEdge 10 -RO: Clients now write entries in the .lg file
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation27DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Dump/Load
Logical Scatter Factor is very important• Performance Difference of 400% to 1000%
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation28DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Remote Clients
-Ma• The Lower Value, the Better the Performance
-Mm• No Negative Impact on ATM Benchmarks
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation29DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Network Speed
20
7090 100
020406080
100120140
Relative Performance
thro
ugh
put
(perc
ent)
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation30DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
“Coma” Problem
We have experienced this problem in every Bunker Test
We still don’t know what’s wrongA customer on RH AS 4 Kernel: 2.6.9-5.Elsmp
reports problem solved - for himThere are an infinite number of things and
combinations of things that can be changed in the kernel
We need to do some work with the “aggressiveness” of the APWs to help…but also more testing
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation31DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Coma problem: -directio helps
843680
0
200
400
600
800
1000
no -directio with -directio
thro
ugh
put
(tps)
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation32DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
We still think about this problem
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation33DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
64-Bit
We saw
No difference in general performancebetween 32 and 64 bit Progress
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation34DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Strange Problem
WEIRD PROBLEM ON ONE MACHINE:The bigger –B, the lower the TPS rate
• True with both 32 and 64 bit Progress/Linux• Could be caused by:
– Enterprise versus Desktop version of Linux– 10.1A Beta problem– SUSE Linux 10 issue (unsupported OS)– Something else– HyperTransport Effects– All the above
DID NOT OCCUR ON OTHER MACHINESHAVE NOT SEEN AGAIN
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation35DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
TPS vs Response Time
901815 748
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Max TPS AggrApws
Direct I/O
TP
S v
s M
ax
Resp
onse
Column 1 Max R x 10
Avg Response time 0.2 seconds
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation36DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
V10.0B versus V10.1A Beta
No Difference in general performance
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation37DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
SATA versus SCSI
SCSI was faster
SATA is less expensive
Beware: desktop drives not rated for 24x7 operation
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation38DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Online backup time
241
836
0
200
400
600
800
1000
no users 150 user atm
bac
kup
time (
seco
nds
)
workload
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation39DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Online backup rate (approximate)
2804
808
0
5001000
15002000
2500
30003500
4000
no users 150 user atm
back
up r
ate
(MB
per
min
ute)
workload
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation40DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Online backup performance impact
493592
0
200
400
600
800
1000
with onlinebackup
no onlinebackup
thro
ugh
put
(tps)
150 user atm workload
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation41DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Adding extent online: elapsed time
• Add 2 GB extent on same disk array
operation no users 150 users
create extent 18 seconds 35 seconds
enable extent 0 seconds 0 seconds
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation42DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Adding extent online: performance impact
839 784
0
200
400
600
800
1000
normal adding extent
thro
ugh
put
(tps)
150 user workload, add 2 GB data extent online,Extent on same striped array as other extents
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation43DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Secret Bunker Web Pages
March 2002 & October 2002http://www.myfloridacottage.com/benchmark.html
April 2004http://www.myfloridacottage.com/bunker3.html
Oct 2005http://www.myfloridacottage.com/bunker4/
© 2006 Progress Software Corporation45DB-14 Tales of the Bunker 2005
Also seeGus’s RDBMS Tuning Guide on
conference CD
Want Answers