Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?
Date: 2019-07-03 15:42:49
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaRSiD0=ufEsL6sfKecHuxFWqAMcQvqOdoLJdPWS2Nokg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:24 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe. And it would probably work for the systems I used for benchmarks.
>
> It however assumes two things: (a) the storage system actually has
> spindles and (b) you know how many spindles there are. Which is becoming
> less and less safe these days - flash storage becomes pretty common, and
> even when there are spindles they are often hidden behind the veil of
> virtualization in a SAN, or something.

Yeah, that's true.

> I wonder if we might provide something like pg_test_prefetch which would
> measure performance with different values, similarly to pg_test_fsync.

That's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure if the results that we got in
a synthetic test - presumably unloaded - would be a good guide to what
to use in a production situation. Maybe it would; I'm just not sure.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-07-03 15:49:30 Re: [PATCH v5] Show detailed table persistence in \dt+
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2019-07-03 15:24:12 Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?