Hi Asif, On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 1:00 PM Asif Rehman <asifr.reh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > I did some tests a while back, and here are the results. The tests were > done to simulate > a live database environment using pgbench. > > machine configuration used for this test: > Instance Type: t2.xlarge > Volume Type : io1 > Memory (MiB) : 16384 > vCPU # : 4 > Architecture : X86_64 > IOP : 16000 > Database Size (GB) : 102 > > The setup consist of 3 machines. > - one for database instances > - one for pg_basebackup client and > - one for pgbench with some parallel workers, simulating SELECT loads. > > basebackup | 4 workers | 8 Workers | > 16 workers > Backup Duration(Min): 69.25 | 20.44 | 19.86 | > 20.15 > (pgbench running with 50 parallel client simulating SELECT load) > Well that looks a bit strange. All 4, 8 and 16 workers backup configurations seem to have taken the same time. Is it because the machine CPUs are only 4? In that case did you try to run with 2-workers and compare that with 4-workers time? Also, just to clarify and be sure - was there anything else running on any of these 3 machines while the backup was in progress. Regards, Jeevan Ladhe > Backup Duration(Min): 154.75 | 49.28 | 45.27 | 20.35 > (pgbench running with 100 parallel client simulating SELECT load) > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 9:27 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:07 PM Asif Rehman <asifr.reh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I forgot to make a check for no-manifest. Fixed. Attached is the updated >>> patch. >>> >>> >> Have we done any performance testing with this patch to see the benefits? >> If so, can you point me to the results? If not, then can we perform some >> tests on large backups to see the benefits of this patch/idea? >> >> -- >> With Regards, >> Amit Kapila. >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> > > > -- > -- > Asif Rehman > Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan) > URL : www.highgo.ca > >
