On 12/23/2016 03:58 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

But as discussed with Amit in Tokyo at pgconf.asia, I got access to a
Power8e machine (IBM 8247-22L to be precise). It's a much smaller machine
compared to the x86 one, though - it only has 24 cores in 2 sockets, 128GB
of RAM and less powerful storage, for example.

I've repeated a subset of x86 tests and pushed them to


The new results are prefixed with "power-" and I've tried to put them right
next to the "same" x86 tests.

In all cases the patches significantly reduce the contention on
CLogControlLock, just like on x86. Which is good and expected.

The results look positive.  Do you think we can conclude based on all
the tests you and Dilip have done, that we can move forward with this
patch (in particular group-update) or do you still want to do more
tests?   I am aware that in one of the tests we have observed that
reducing contention on CLOGControlLock has increased the contention on
WALWriteLock, but I feel we can leave that point as a note to
committer and let him take a final call.  From the code perspective
already Robert and Andres have taken one pass of review and I have
addressed all their comments, so surely more review of code can help,
but I think that is not a big deal considering patch size is
relatively small.

Yes, I believe that seems like a reasonable conclusion. I've done a few more tests on the Power machine with data placed on a tmpfs filesystem (to minimize all the I/O overhead), but the results are the same.

I don't think more testing is needed at this point, at lest not with the synthetic test cases we've been using for the testing. The patch already received way more benchmarking than most other patches.


Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to