| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.4 regression |
| Date: | 2013-08-16 20:57:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20130816205725.GE8972@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:08:57PM -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
> > Where are we on this issue?
>
> I've been able to replicate it pretty easily with PostgreSQL and
> continue to look into it. I've contacted Theodore Ts'o and have gotten
> some useful information, however I'm unable to replicate the behavior
> with the test program (even one that's been modified). What I've
> learned is:
>
> - XLogWrite appears to take approx. 2.5 times longer when writing to a
> file allocated with posix_fallocate, but only the first time the file
> contents are overwritten. This is partially explained by how ext4
> handles extents and uninitialized data, but 2.5x is MUCH more
> expensive than anticipated or expected here.
> - Writing zeroes to a file allocated with posix_fallocate (essentially
> adding a posix_fallocate step before the usual write-zeroes-in-a-loop
> approach) not only doesn't seem to hurt performance, it seems to help
> or at least have parity, *and* the space is guaranteed to exist on
> disk. At the very least that seems useful.
Is it time to revert this patch until we know more?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-16 23:52:27 | Re: [PATCH] pg_sleep(interval) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-08-16 20:19:35 | Re: pg_ctl initdb takes options, but pg_ctl --help doesn't document them? |