Re: WAL Re-Writes

On 1/31/16 3:26 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 08:30 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> operation. Now why OS couldn't find the corresponding block in
>> memory is that, while closing the WAL file, we use
>> POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED if wal_level is less than 'archive' which
>> lead to this problem. So with this experiment, the conclusion is that
>> though we can avoid re-write of WAL data by doing exact writes, but
>> it could lead to significant reduction in TPS.
>
> POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED isn't the only way how those blocks would vanish
> from OS buffers. If I am not mistaken we recycle WAL segments in a round
> robin fashion. In a properly configured system, where the reason for a
> checkpoint is usually "time" rather than "xlog", a recycled WAL file
> written to had been closed and not touched for about a complete
> checkpoint_timeout or longer. You must have a really big amount of spare
> RAM in the machine to still find those blocks in memory. Basically we
> are talking about the active portion of your database, shared buffers,
> the sum of all process local memory and the complete pg_xlog directory
> content fitting into RAM.

But that's only going to matter when the segment is newly recycled. My
impression from Amit's email is that the OS was repeatedly reading even
in the same segment?

Either way, I would think it wouldn't be hard to work around this by
spewing out a bunch of zeros to the OS in advance of where we actually
need to write, preventing the need for reading back from disk.

Amit, did you do performance testing with archiving enabled an a no-op
archive_command?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com