Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 3. Pause for 3 seconds after every fsync.
>> I think something along the lines of #3 is probably a good idea,
> Really? Any particular delay is guaranteed wrong.
'3 seconds' is just a placeholder for whatever comes out of a "total
time scheduled to sync / relations to sync" computation. (Still doing
all my thinking in terms of time, altough I recognize a showdown with
segment-based checkpoints is coming too)
I think the right way to compute "relations to sync" is to finish the
sorted writes patch I sent over a not quite right yet update to already,
which is my next thing to work on here. I remain pessimistic that any
attempt to issue fsync calls without the maximum possible delay after
asking kernel to write things out first will work out well. My recent
tests with low values of dirty_bytes on Linux just reinforces how bad
that can turn out. In addition to computing the relation count while
sorting them, placing writes in-order by relation and then doing all
writes followed by all syncs should place the database right in the
middle of the throughput/latency trade-off here. It will have had the
maximum amount of time we can give it to sort and flush writes for any
given relation before it is asked to sync it. I don't want to try and
be any smarter than that without trying to be a *lot* smarter--timing
individual sync calls, feedback loops on time estimation, etc.
At this point I have to agree with Robert's observation that splitting
checkpoints into checkpoint_write_target and checkpoint_sync_target is
the only reasonable thing left that might be possible complete in a
short period. So that's how this can compute the total time numerator here.
The main thing I will warn about in relations to discussion today is the
danger of true dead-line oriented scheduling in this area. The
checkpoint process may discover the sync phase is falling behind
expectations because the individual sync calls are taking longer than
expected. If that happens, aiming for the "finish on target anyway"
goal puts you right back to a guaranteed nasty write spike again. I
think many people would prefer logging the overrun as tuning feedback
for the DBA rather than to accelerate, which is likely to make the
problem even worse if the checkpoint is falling behind. But since
ultimately the feedback for this will be "make the checkpoints longer or
increase checkpoint_sync_target", sync acceleration to meet the deadline
isn't unacceptable; DBA can try both of those themselves if seeing spikes.
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-01-31 21:35:53|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 15|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2011-01-31 21:30:57|
|Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict