| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: effective_io_concurrency and NVMe devices |
| Date: | 2022-04-20 17:58:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20220420175858.GA2634425@nathanxps13 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 10:56:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> NVMe devices have a maximum queue length of 64k:
>
> https://blog.westerndigital.com/nvme-queues-explained/
>
> but our effective_io_concurrency maximum is 1,000:
>
> test=> set effective_io_concurrency = 1001;
> ERROR: 1001 is outside the valid range for parameter "effective_io_concurrency" (0 .. 1000)
>
> Should we increase its maximum to 64k? Backpatched? (SATA has a
> maximum queue length of 256.)
If there are demonstrable improvements with higher values, this seems
reasonable to me. I would even suggest removing the limit completely so
this doesn't need to be revisited in the future.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-04-20 18:27:40 | Re: Bad estimate with partial index |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-04-20 17:43:57 | Re: [Proposal] vacuumdb --schema only |