On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all thanks for committing part-1 of this changes and it > seems you are planing to commit part-3 based on results of tests > which Andres is planing to do and for remaining part (part-2), today > I have tried some tests, the results of which are as follows: > > Scale Factor - 3000, Shared_buffer - 8GB > > Patch_Ver/Client_Count 16 32 64 128 reduce-replacement-locking.patch > + 128 Buf Partitions 157732 229547 271536 245295 > scalable_buffer_eviction_v9.patch 163762 230753 275147 248309 > > > Scale Factor - 3000, Shared_buffer - 8GB > > Patch_Ver/Client_Count 16 32 64 128 reduce-replacement-locking.patch > + 128 Buf Partitions 157781 212134 202209 171176 > scalable_buffer_eviction_v9.patch 160301 213922 208680 172720 > > > The results indicates that in all cases there is benefit by doing > part-2 (bgreclaimer). Though the benefit at this configuration is > not high, but might be at some higher configurations > (scale factor - 10000) there is more benefit. Do you see any merit > in pursuing further to accomplish part-2 as well? > Interesting results. Thanks for gathering this data. If this is the best we can do with the bgreclaimer, I think the case for pursuing it is somewhat marginal. The biggest jump you've got seems to be at scale factor 3000 with 64 clients, where you picked up about 4%. 4% isn't nothing, but it's not a lot, either. On the other hand, this might not be the best we can do. There may be further improvements to bgreclaimer that make the benefit larger. Backing up a it, to what extent have we actually solved the problem here? If we had perfectly removed all of the scalability bottlenecks, what would we expect to see? You didn't say which machine this testing was done on, or how many cores it had, but for example on the IBM POWER7 machine, we probably wouldn't expect the throughput at 64 clients to be 4 times the throughput at 16 cores because up to 16 clients each one can have a full CPU core, whereas after that and out to 64 each is getting a hardware thread, which is not quite as good. Still, we'd expect performance to go up, or at least not go down. Your data shows a characteristic performance knee: between 16 and 32 clients we go up, but then between 32 and 64 we go down, and between 64 and 128 we go down more. You haven't got enough data points there to show very precisely where the knee is, but unless you tested this on a smaller box than what you have been using, we're certainly hitting the knee sometime before we run out of physical cores. That implies a remaining contention bottleneck. My results from yesterday were a bit different. I tested 1 client, 8 clients, and multiples of 16 clients out to 96. With reduce-replacement-locking.patch + 128 buffer mapping partitions, performance continued to rise all the way out to 96 clients. It definitely wasn't linearly, but it went up, not down. I don't know why this is different from what you are seeing. Anyway there's a little more ambiguity there about how much contention remains, but my bet is that there is at least some contention that we could still hope to remove. We need to understand where that contention is. Are the buffer mapping locks still contended? Is the new spinlock contended? Are there other contention points? I won't be surprised if it turns out that the contention is on the new spinlock and that a proper design for bgreclaimer is the best way to remove that contention .... but I also won't be surprised if it turns out that there are bigger wins elsewhere. So I think you should try to figure out where the remaining contention is first, and then we can discuss what to do about it. On another point, I think it would be a good idea to rebase the bgreclaimer patch over what I committed, so that we have a clean patch against master to test with. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
