| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers. |
| Date: | 2017-04-25 04:17:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20170425041743.ddabv2mwevcmtx5a@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
Hi,
I've lately seen more and more installations where the generation of
write-ahead-log (WAL) is one of the primary bottlenecks. I'm curious
whether that's primarily a "sampling error" of mine, or whether that's
indeed more common.
The primary reason I'm curious is that I'm pondering a few potential
optimizations, and would like to have some guidance which are more and
which are less important.
Questions (answer as many you can comfortably answer):
- How many MB/s, segments/s do you see on busier servers?
- What generates the bulk of WAL on your servers (9.5+ can use
pg_xlogdump --stats to compute that)?
- Are you seeing WAL writes being a bottleneck?OA
- What kind of backup methods are you using and is the WAL volume a
problem?
- What kind of replication are you using and is the WAL volume a
problem?
- What are your settings for wal_compression, max_wal_size (9.5+) /
checkpoint_segments (< 9.5), checkpoint_timeout and wal_buffers?
- Could you quickly describe your workload?
Feel free to add any information you think is pertinent ;)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Borodin | 2017-04-25 07:56:14 | Re: Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers. |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2017-04-24 23:11:46 | Re: Protocol 2 and query parameters support |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Johann Spies | 2017-04-25 06:28:11 | Re: Delete, foreign key, index usage |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-04-24 13:17:18 | Re: Delete, foreign key, index usage |