Re: Background LRU Writer/free list

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Background LRU Writer/free list
Date: 2007-04-18 18:28:03
Message-ID: 87hcrdpmfg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Why? What you're really trying to determine, I think, is the I/O load
> imposed by the bgwriter, and pages-per-second seems a pretty natural
> way to think about that; percentage of shared buffers not so much.

What I'm saying is that pages/s will vary from system to system. Busier
systems will have higher i/o rates. So a system with a DBA on a system with a
higher rate will want to adjust the bgwriter sleep time lower than the DBA on
a system where bgwriter isn't doing much work.

In particular I'm worried about what happens on a very busy cpu-bound system
where adjusting the sleep times would result in it deciding to not sleep at
all. On such a system sleeping for even 10ms might be too long. But we
probably don't want to make the default even as low as 10ms.

Anyways, if we have a working patch that works the other way around we could
experiment with that and see if there are actual situations where sleeping for
0ms is necessary. Perhaps a mixture of the two approaches will be necessary
anyways because of the granularity issue.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-04-18 18:36:12 Re: Hacking on PostgreSQL via GIT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-04-18 18:23:04 Re: Can't ri_KeysEqual() consider two nulls as equal?