> From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:pe...@2ndquadrant.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 8:49 PM
On 1 August 2012 15:14, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote:
>> I shall look into this aspect also(setting commit_delay based on raw
sync).
>> You also suggest if you want to run the test with different
configuration.
> Well, I was specifically interested in testing if half of raw sync
> time was a widely useful setting, across a variety of different,
> though representative I/O subsystems. Unfortunately, without some
> context about raw sync speed to go along with your numbers, I cannot
> advance or disprove that idea.
Raw sync speed data
--------------------------
2 seconds per test
O_DIRECT supported on this platform for open_datasync and open_sync.
Compare file sync methods using one 8kB write:
(in wal_sync_method preference order, except fdatasync
is Linux's default)
open_datasync n/a
fdatasync 165.506 ops/sec
fsync 166.647 ops/sec
fsync_writethrough n/a
open_sync 164.654 ops/sec
165.506 * 8KB operations can perform in one sec.
so 1 * 8KB operation takes 6.042 msec.
> It would also have been nice to see a baseline number of 0 too, to get
> an idea of how effective commit_delay may now be. However, that's
> secondary.
In the data sent yesterday commit_delay=0 was there.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
