Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From ITAGAKI Takahiro
Subject Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Date
Msg-id 20050530094517.3DD8.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
Responses Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Re: O_DIRECT for WAL writes
List pgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> wrote:

> > The patch adds a new choice "open_direct" to wal_sync_method.
> Have you looked at what the performance difference of this option is?

Yes, I've tested pgbench and dbt2 and their performances have improved.
The two results are as follows:

1. pgbench -s 100 on one Pentium4, 1GB mem, 2 ATA disks, Linux 2.6.8
   (attached image)
  tps  | wal_sync_method
-------+-------------------------------------------------------
 147.0 | open_direct + write multipage (previous patch)
 147.2 | open_direct (this patch)
 109.9 | open_sync

2. dbt2 100WH on two opterons, 8GB mem, 12 SATA-RAID disks, Linux 2.4.20
  tpm   | wal_sync_method
--------+------------------------------------------------------
 1183.9 | open_direct (this patch)
  911.3 | fsync



> http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-patches@postgresql.org/msg07186.html
> Is this data still applicable to the revised patch?

Direct-IO might be good on some machines, and bad on others.
This data is another reason that I revised the patch;
If you don't use open_direct, WAL writer behaves quite similarly to former.

However, the performances did not go down at least on my benchmarks.
I have no idea why the above data was bad...

---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories


Attachment

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: skip FK trigger on UPDATE
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: skip FK trigger on UPDATE