From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Sync vs. fsync during checkpoint |
Date: | 2004-02-05 16:38:03 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA49620A4@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> People keep saying that the bgwriter mustn't write pages synchronously
> because it'd be bad for performance, but I think that analysis is
> faulty. Performance of what --- the bgwriter? Nonsense, the *point*
Imho that depends on the workload. For a normal OLTP workload this is
certainly correct. I do not think it is correct for mass loading,
or an otherwise IO bound db.
> of the bgwriter is to do the slow tasks. The only argument that has
> any merit is that O_SYNC or immediate fsync will prevent us from having
> multiple writes outstanding and thus reduce the efficiency of disk
> write scheduling. This is a valid point but there is a limit to how
> many writes we need to have in flight to keep things flowing smoothly.
But that is imho the main point. The difference for modern disks
is 1Mb/s for random 8k vs. 20 Mb/s for random 256k.
Don't understand me wrong I think sync writing would achieve maximum performance,
but you have to try to write physically adjacent 256k, and you need a vague
idea which blocks to write in parallel. And since that is not so easy I think
we could leave it to the OS.
And as an aside I think 20-30 minute checkpoint intervals would be sufficient
with a bgwriter.
Andreas
Ps: don't most syncers have 60s intervals, not 30 ?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Austin Gonyou | 2004-02-05 16:38:29 | Re: PITR Dead horse? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-02-05 16:34:02 | Re: dollar quoting |