Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nate Boley's AMD 6128 box (which has 32 cores) and an HP Integrity
> server (also with 32 cores). 
> [clear improvement with flexlock patch]
Hmm.  We have a 32-core Intel box (4 x X7560 @ 2.27GHz) with 256 GB
RAM.  It's about a week from going into production, at which point
it will be extremely hard to schedule such tests, but for a few days
more I've got shots at it.  The flexlock patch doesn't appear to be
such a clear win here.
I started from Robert's tests, but used these settings so that I
could go to higher client counts and better test serializable
transactions.  Everything is fully cached.
max_connections = 200
max_pred_locks_per_transaction = 256
shared_buffers = 8GB
maintenance_work_mem = 1GB
checkpoint_segments = 30
checkpoint_timeout = 15min
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
seq_page_cost = 0.1
random_page_cost = 0.1
cpu_tuple_cost = 0.05
effective_cache_size = 40GB
default_transaction_isolation = '$iso'
Serializable results not shown here -- that's to gather information
for trying to improve SSI locking.
m1 tps = 7847.834544 (including connections establishing)
f1 tps = 7917.225382 (including connections establishing)
m2 tps = 18672.145526 (including connections establishing)
f2 tps = 17486.435322 (including connections establishing)
m4 tps = 34371.278253 (including connections establishing)
f4 tps = 34465.898173 (including connections establishing)
m8 tps = 68228.261694 (including connections establishing)
f8 tps = 68505.285830 (including connections establishing)
m16 tps = 127449.815100 (including connections establishing)
f16 tps = 127208.939670 (including connections establishing)
m32 tps = 201738.209348 (including connections establishing)
f32 tps = 201637.237903 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 380326.800557 (including connections establishing)
f64 tps = 380628.429408 (including connections establishing)
m80 tps = 366628.197546 (including connections establishing)
f80 tps = 162594.012051 (including connections establishing)
m96 tps = 360922.948775 (including connections establishing)
f96 tps = 366728.987041 (including connections establishing)
m128 tps = 352159.631878 (including connections establishing)
f128 tps = 355475.129448 (including connections establishing)
I did five runs each and took the median.  In most cases, the values
were pretty close to one another in a group, so confidence is pretty
high that this is meaningful.  There were a few anomalies where
performance for one or more samples was horrid.  This seems
consistent with the theory of pathological pileups on the LW locks
(or also flexlocks?).
The problem groups:
m64 tps = 380407.768906 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 79197.470389 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 381112.194105 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 378579.036542 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 380326.800557 (including connections establishing)

m96 tps = 360582.945291 (including connections establishing)
m96 tps = 363021.805138 (including connections establishing)
m96 tps = 362468.870516 (including connections establishing)
m96 tps = 59614.322351 (including connections establishing)
m96 tps = 360922.948775 (including connections establishing)

f80 tps = 158905.149822 (including connections establishing)
f80 tps = 157192.460599 (including connections establishing)
f80 tps = 370757.790443 (including connections establishing)
f80 tps = 162594.012051 (including connections establishing)
f80 tps = 372170.638516 (including connections establishing)

f96 tps = 366804.733788 (including connections establishing)
f96 tps = 366728.987041 (including connections establishing)
f96 tps = 365490.380848 (including connections establishing)
f96 tps = 366770.193305 (including connections establishing)
f96 tps = 125225.371140 (including connections establishing)
So the lows don't seem to be as low when they happen with the
flexlock patch, but they still happen -- possibly more often?
-Kevin