From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Free WAL caches on switching segments |
Date: | 2006-02-14 21:50:27 |
Message-ID: | 43F250A3.6020304@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>Sounds like a recipe for ensuring it never will be tested. What's
>>>needed here is some actual tests, not preparation...
>
>
>>Does the OP have a test scenario that those of us with appropriate OS's
>>could try? Come to think of it, what are the appropriate OS's? (I see
>>NetBSD mentioned so I suppose all the *BSDs, but what others?).
>
>
> The test run by the OP was just pgbench,
Ah - right, missed that sorry.
> which is probably not the
> greatest scenario for showing the benefits of this patch, but at least
> it's neutral ground. You need a situation in which the kernel is under
> memory stress, else early free of disk cache buffers isn't going to make
> any difference whatever --- so choose a pgbench scale factor that makes
> the database noticeably larger than the test machine's RAM. Other than
> that, follow the usual guidelines for producing trustworthy pgbench
> numbers: number of clients smaller than scale factor, number of
> transactions per client at least 1000 or so (to eliminate startup
> transients), repeat test a couple times to make sure numbers are
> reproducible.
>
Thinking about this, presumably any write intensive, multi-user
benchmark would seem to be suitable, so would something like OSDL's
DBT-2 actually be better to try?
Cheers
Mark
(P.s - academic in my case, unless I try out the latest NetBSD or Linux
on one of my FreeBSD boxes....)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-02-14 21:54:12 | Re: Patch Submission Guidelines |
Previous Message | Andrew Klosterman | 2006-02-14 21:35:28 | Re: BUG #2246: Bad malloc interactions: ecpg, openssl |