From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | maryedie(at)osdl(dot)org |
Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
Date: | 2005-06-03 00:37:39 |
Message-ID: | 1117759059.22984.17.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 11:49 -0700, Mary Edie Meredith wrote:
> My understanding is that O_DIRECT means "direct" as in "no buffering by
> the OS" which implies that if you write from your buffer, the write is
> not going to return unless the OS thinks the write is completed
Right, I think that's definitely the case. The question is whether a
write() under O_DIRECT will also flush the disk's write cache -- i.e.
when the write() completes, we need it to be durable over a spontaneous
power loss. fsync() or O_SYNC should provide this (modulo braindamaged
IDE hardware), but I wouldn't be surprised if O_DIRECT by itself will
not (otherwise you would hurt the performance of applications using
O_DIRECT that don't need these durability guarantees).
> Bottom line: if you do not implement direct/async IO so that you
> optimize caching of hot database objects and minimize memory utilization
> of objects used once, you are probably leaving performance on the table
> for datafiles.
Absolutely -- patches are welcome :) I agree async IO + O_DIRECT in some
form would be interesting, but the changes required are far from trivial
-- my guess is there are lower hanging fruit.
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-03 01:25:06 | Re: psql: \d+ show tablespace of indices |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-06-03 00:34:35 | Google's Summer of Code: Too Late |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-06-03 01:03:40 | Re: COPY fast parse patch |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-03 00:12:34 | Re: Oracle date type compat. functions: next_day, |