Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone have experience benchmarking very high effective_io_concurrency on NVME's?

On 1 November 2017 at 11:49, Andres Freund wrote: > Right. It'd probably be good to be a bit more adaptive here. But it's > hard to do with posix_fadvise - we'd need an operation that actually > notifies us of IO completion. If we were using, say, asynchronous > direct IO,

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone have experience benchmarking very high effective_io_concurrency on NVME's?

Hi, On 2017-10-31 18:47:06 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 10/31/2017 04:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > > On 31 October 2017 at 07:05, Chris Travers > wrote: > >> Hi; > >> > >> After Andres's excellent talk at PGConf we tried benchmarking > >> effective_io_concurrency on

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Anyone have experience benchmarking very high effective_io_concurrency on NVME's?

Hi, On 10/31/2017 04:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > On 31 October 2017 at 07:05, Chris Travers wrote: >> Hi; >> >> After Andres's excellent talk at PGConf we tried benchmarking >> effective_io_concurrency on some of our servers and found that those which >> have a number of

[HACKERS] Re: Anyone have experience benchmarking very high effective_io_concurrency on NVME's?

On 31 October 2017 at 07:05, Chris Travers wrote: > Hi; > > After Andres's excellent talk at PGConf we tried benchmarking > effective_io_concurrency on some of our servers and found that those which > have a number of NVME storage volumes could not fill the I/O queue