From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes |
Date: | 2005-05-30 01:59:59 |
Message-ID: | 20050530094517.3DD8.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote:
> > The patch adds a new choice "open_direct" to wal_sync_method.
> Have you looked at what the performance difference of this option is?
Yes, I've tested pgbench and dbt2 and their performances have improved.
The two results are as follows:
1. pgbench -s 100 on one Pentium4, 1GB mem, 2 ATA disks, Linux 2.6.8
(attached image)
tps | wal_sync_method
-------+-------------------------------------------------------
147.0 | open_direct + write multipage (previous patch)
147.2 | open_direct (this patch)
109.9 | open_sync
2. dbt2 100WH on two opterons, 8GB mem, 12 SATA-RAID disks, Linux 2.4.20
tpm | wal_sync_method
--------+------------------------------------------------------
1183.9 | open_direct (this patch)
911.3 | fsync
> http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org/msg07186.html
> Is this data still applicable to the revised patch?
Direct-IO might be good on some machines, and bad on others.
This data is another reason that I revised the patch;
If you don't use open_direct, WAL writer behaves quite similarly to former.
However, the performances did not go down at least on my benchmarks.
I have no idea why the above data was bad...
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
image/png | 26.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-30 02:33:39 | Re: locks in CREATE TRIGGER, ADD FK |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-30 01:52:55 | Re: locks in CREATE TRIGGER, ADD FK |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-05-30 02:55:16 | Re: skip FK trigger on UPDATE |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-30 01:06:39 | Re: skip FK trigger on UPDATE |