From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps |
Date: | 2012-01-19 19:15:12 |
Message-ID: | 1327000472-sup-5934@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Simon Riggs's message of jue ene 19 16:05:36 -0300 2012:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I think it makes more sense to use the max read rate as the main knob,
> > rather than write rate. That's because the max read rate is higher than the
> > write rate, when you don't need to dirty pages. Or do you think saturating
> > the I/O system with writes is so much bigger a problem than read I/O that it
> > makes more sense to emphasize the writes?
>
> Yes, the writes are more important of the two.
>
> Too many writes at one time can overflow hardware caches, so things
> tend to get much worse beyond a certain point.
>
> Also, rate limiting writes means we rate limit WAL rate also which is
> very important.
>
> I'd like this to apply to large DDL, not just VACUUMs.
More generally, this can sometimes be useful in general queries as well.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-19 19:17:13 | Re: WAL Restore process during recovery |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-19 19:10:00 | Re: automating CF submissions (was xlog location arithmetic) |