On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> That's a speedup of nearly a factor of two, so clearly fsync-related
>> stalls are a big problem here, even with wal_buffers cranked up
>> through the ceiling.
> Hmmmm. Do you have any ability to test on XFS?
It seems I do.
XFS, with fsync = on:
tps = 14746.687499 (including connections establishing)
XFS, with fsync = off:
tps = 25121.876560 (including connections establishing)
No real dramatic difference there, maybe a bit slower.
On further thought, it may be that this is just a simple case of too
many checkpoints. With fsync=off, we don't have to actually write all
that dirty data back to disk. I'm going to try cranking up
checkpoint_segments and see what happens.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-03-14 03:41:39|
|Subject: Re: Command Triggers, patch v11|
|Previous:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2012-03-14 02:39:24|
|Subject: Re: Chronic performance issue with Replication Failover and FSM.|