Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering

From: Mark Lewis
Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering
Date: ,
Msg-id: 1175797629.5581.39.camel@archimedes
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones)
Responses: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Xiaoning Ding <-state.edu>, )
 Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
  Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Xiaoning Ding <-state.edu>, )
   Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
    Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ("Alex Deucher", )
     Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Xiaoning Ding <-state.edu>, )
      Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ("Alex Deucher", )
      Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (, )
   Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (, )
    Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
     Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (, )
  Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Mark Lewis, )
   Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
    Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Mark Lewis, )
     Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
      Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ("Jim C. Nasby", )

Not to hijack this thread, but has anybody here tested the behavior of
PG on a file system with OS-level caching disabled via forcedirectio or
by using an inherently non-caching file system such as ocfs2?

I've been thinking about trying this setup to avoid double-caching now
that the 8.x series scales shared buffers better, but I figured I'd ask
first if anybody here had experience with similar configurations.

-- Mark

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:09 -0500, Erik Jones wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Xiaoning Ding wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > A page may be double buffered in PG's buffer pool and in OS's buffer
> > cache.
> > Other DBMS like DB2 and Oracle has provided Direct I/O option to
> > eliminate
> > double buffering. I noticed there were discusses on the list. But
> > I can not find similar option in PG. Does PG support direct I/O now?
> >
> >
> > The tuning guide of PG usually recommends a small shared buffer pool
> > (compared
> > to the size of physical memory).  I think it is to avoid swapping.
> > If
> > there were
> > swapping, OS kernel may swap out some pages in PG's buffer pool even
> > PG
> > want to keep them in memory. i.e. PG would loose full control over
> > buffer pool.
> > A large buffer pool is not good because it may
> > 1. cause more pages double buffered, and thus decrease the
> > efficiency of
> > buffer
> > cache and buffer pool.
> > 2. may cause swapping.
> > Am I right?
> >
> >
> > If PG's buffer pool is small compared with physical memory, can I
> > say
> > that the
> > hit ratio of PG's buffer pool is not so meaningful because most
> > misses
> > can be
> > satisfied by OS Kernel's buffer cache?
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, Postgres itself does not have a direct IO
> option (although it would be a good addition).  So, in order to use
> direct IO with postgres you'll need to consult your filesystem docs
> for how to set the forcedirectio mount option.  I believe it can be
> set dynamically, but if you want it to be permanent you'll to add it
> to your fstab/vfstab file.
>
>
> erik jones <>
> software developer
> 615-296-0838
> emma(r)
>
>
>
>
>


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Vincenzo Romano
Date:
Subject: Re: Weird performance drop
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering