On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I have finished a first run of benchmarking the current 9.1 code at various
> sizes. See http://www.2ndquadrant.us/pgbench-results/index.htm for many
> details. The interesting stuff is in Test Set 3, near the bottom. That's
> the first one that includes buffer_backend_fsync data. This iall on ext3 so
> far, but is using a newer 2.6.32 kernel, the one from Ubuntu 10.04.
> The results are classic Linux in 2010: latency pauses from checkpoint sync
> will easily leave the system at a dead halt for a minute, with the worst one
> observed this time dropping still for 108 seconds. That one is weird, but
> these two are completely averge cases:
> I think a helpful next step here would be to put Robert's fsync compaction
> patch into here and see if that helps. There are enough backend syncs
> showing up in the difficult workloads (scale>=1000, clients >=32) that its
> impact should be obvious.
Have you ever tested Robert's other idea of having a metronome process
do a periodic fsync on a dummy file which is located on the same ext3fs
as the table files? I think that that would be interesting to see.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-17 16:43:23|
|Subject: Re: Moving test_fsync to /contrib? |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-17 16:27:16|
|Subject: Re: Moving test_fsync to /contrib?|