Re: Sorted writes in checkpoint

ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>>> If the kernel can treat sequential writes better than random writes, is
>>> it worth sorting dirty buffers in block order per file at the start of
>>> checkpoints?
>
> I wrote and tested the attached sorted-writes patch base on Heikki's
> ldc-justwrites-1.patch. There was obvious performance win on OLTP workload.
>
> tests | pgbench | DBT-2 response time (avg/90%/max)
> ---------------------------+---------+-----------------------------------
> LDC only | 181 tps | 1.12 / 4.38 / 12.13 s
> + BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED(*) | 187 tps | 0.83 / 2.68 / 9.26 s
> + Sorted writes | 224 tps | 0.36 / 0.80 / 8.11 s
>
> (*) Don't write buffers that were dirtied after starting the checkpoint.
>
> machine : 2GB-ram, SCSI*4 RAID-5
> pgbench : -s400 -t40000 -c10 (about 5GB of database)
> DBT-2 : 60WH (about 6GB of database)

Wow, I didn't expect that much gain from the sorted writes. How was LDC
configured?

>> 3) The OS disk elevator should be dealing with this issue, particularly
>> because it may really know the actual disk ordering.

Yeah, but we don't give the OS that much chance to coalesce writes when
we spread them out.

>> Here's the subtle thing: by writing in the same order the LRU scan occurs
>> in, you are writing dirty buffers in the optimal fashion to eliminate
>> client backend writes during BuferAlloc. This makes the checkpoint a
>> really effective LRU clearing mechanism. Writing in block order will
>> change that.
>
> The issue will probably go away after we have LDC, because it writes LRU
> buffers during checkpoints.

I think so too.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com