Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CLOG contention

From: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: CLOG contention
Date: 2012-01-05 20:45:26
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> If we go with such a formula, I think 32 MB would be a more
>> appropriate divisor than 128 MB.  Even on very large machines where
>> 32 CLOG buffers would be a clear win, we often can't go above 1 or 2
>> GB of shared_buffers without hitting latency spikes due to overrun
>> of the RAID controller cache.  (Now, that may change if we get DW
>> in, but that's not there yet.)  1 GB / 32 is 32 MB.  This would
>> leave CLOG pinned at the minimum of 8 buffers (64 KB) all the way up
>> to shared_buffers of 256 MB.
> That seems reasonable to me.

likewise (champion bikeshedder here).  It just so happens I typically
set 'large' server shared memory to 256mb.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2012-01-05 21:47:58
Subject: Re: PL/Perl Does not Like vstrings
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-01-05 20:39:11
Subject: Re: CLOG contention

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group