Added to TODO:
* Consider sorting writes during checkpoint
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00541.php
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007
On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 18:33 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > tests| pgbench | DBT-2 response time (avg/90%/max)
> > > ---+-+---
> > > LDC only |
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tests| pgbench | DBT-2 response time (avg/90%/max)
> > ---+-+---
> > LDC only | 181 tps | 1.12 / 4.38 / 12.13 s
> > + BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED(*) | 187
> > tests| pgbench | DBT-2 response time
> (avg/90%/max)
> >
> ---+-+
> > ---+-+---
> > LDC only | 181 tps | 1.12 / 4.38 / 12.13 s
> > + BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED(*
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Linux has some instrumentation that might be useful for this testing,
echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/block_dump
That bit was developed for tracking down who was spinning the hard drive
up out of power saving mode, and I was under the impression that very
ro
On 6/14/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 16:39 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > > If the kernel can treat sequential writes better than random writes, is
> > > it worth sor
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 16:39 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > > If the kernel can treat sequential writes better than random writes, is
> > > it worth sorting dirty buffers in block order per file at the s
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
I think we need a discussion board for I/O performance issues. Can I use
Developers Wiki for this purpose? Since performance graphs and result
tables are important for the discussion, so it might be better than
mailing lists, that are text-based.
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
If the kernel can treat sequential writes better than random writes, is
it worth sorting dirty buffers in block order per file at the start of
checkpoints?
I wrote and tested the attach
"ITAGAKI Takahiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Exactly. I think we need a discussion board for I/O performance issues.
> Can I use Developers Wiki for this purpose? Since performance graphs and
> result tables are important for the discussion, so it might be better
> than mailing lists, that a
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > If the kernel can treat sequential writes better than random writes, is
> > it worth sorting dirty buffers in block order per file at the start of
> > checkpoints?
I wrote and tested the attached sorted-wri
11 matches
Mail list logo
