(2013/12/04 16:39), Claudio Freire wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote:
Can we avoid the Linux kernel problem by simply increasing our shared
buffer size, say up to 80% of memory?
It will be swap more easier.


Is that the case? If the system has not enough memory, the kernel
buffer will be used for other purpose, and the kernel cache will not
work very well anyway. In my understanding, the problem is, even if
there's enough memory, the kernel's cache does not work as expected.

Problem is, Postgres relies on a working kernel cache for checkpoints.
Checkpoint logic would have to be heavily reworked to account for an
impaired kernel cache.

Really, there's no difference between fixing the I/O problems in the
kernel(s) vs in postgres. The only difference is, in the kernel(s),
everyone profits, and you've got a huge head start.
Yes. And using something efficiently DirectIO is more difficult than BufferedIO.
If we change write() flag with direct IO in PostgreSQL, it will execute hardest ugly randomIO.

Communicating more with the kernel (through posix_fadvise, fallocate,
aio, iovec, etc...) would probably be good, but it does expose more
kernel issues. posix_fadvise, for instance, is a double-edged sword
ATM. I do believe, however, that exposing those issues and prompting a
fix is far preferable than silently working around them.
Agreed. And, I believe that controled BufferedIO is faster and easier than controled DirectIO perfectly. In actually, Oracle database uses BufferedIO to access small datasets, and uses DirectIO to access big datasets. It is because using OS file cache more efficiently.

Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to