On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 11/16/10 12:39 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>> I want to next go through and replicate some of the actual database
>>> level tests before giving a full opinion on whether this data proves
>>> it's worth changing the wal_sync_method detection. So far I'm torn
>>> between whether that's the right approach, or if we should just increase
>>> the default value for wal_buffers to something more reasonable.
>> We'd love to, but wal_buffers uses sysV shmem.
> Speaking of the SYSV SHMEM, is it possible to use huge pages?
RHEL 6 and friends have transparent hugepage support. I'm not sure if they yet transparently do it for SYSV SHMEM, but they do for most everything else. Sequential traversal of a process heap is several times faster with hugepages. Unfortunately, postgres doesn't organize its blocks in its shared_mem to be sequential for a relation. So it might not matter much.
> Mladen Gogala
> Sr. Oracle DBA
> 1500 Broadway
> New York, NY 10036
> (212) 329-5251
> The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Scott Carey||Date: 2010-11-17 20:19:10|
|Subject: Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for
|Previous:||From: Scott Carey||Date: 2010-11-17 18:58:36|
|Subject: Re: How to achieve sustained disk performance of 1.25 GB
write for 5 mins|