On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10/31/2016 02:51 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > And moreover, this setup (single device for the whole cluster) is very > common, we can't just neglect it. > > But my main point here really is that the trade-off in those cases may not > be really all that great, because you get the best performance at 36/72 > clients, and then the tps drops and variability increases. At least not > right now, before tackling contention on the WAL lock (or whatever lock > becomes the bottleneck). >
Okay, but does wait event results show increase in contention on some other locks for pgbench-3000-logged-sync-skip-64? Can you share wait events for the runs where there is a fluctuation? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
