On 3/8/17 8:36 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Sharma
To start with, I ran the regression test-suite and didn't find any failures.
But, then I am not sure if huge_pages are getting used or not. However,
upon checking the settings for huge_pages and I found it as 'on'. I am
assuming, if huge pages is not being used due to shortage of large pages,
it should have fallen back to non-huge pages.

You are right, the server falls back to non-huge pages when the large pages run 

I also ran the pgbench tests on read-only workload and here are the results
I got.

pgbench -c 4 -j 4 - T 600 bench

huge_pages=on, TPS = 21120.768085
huge_pages=off, TPS = 20606.288995

Thanks.  It's about 2% improvement, which is the same as what I got.

From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com]
The line beginning 'Huge pages are known as...' has been accidentally

Oops, how careless I was.  Fixed.  As Ashutosh referred, I added a very simple 
suggestion to use Windows Group Policy tool.

Amit, Magnus, you are signed up as reviewers for this patch. Do you know when you'll have a chance to take a look?


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

Reply via email to