Re: bad performance on Solaris 10 - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: bad performance on Solaris 10
Date
Msg-id 20060405214824.GB13673@surnet.cl
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Re: bad performance on Solaris 10  (Chris Mair <list@1006.org>)
List pgsql-performance
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Chris,
>
> On 4/5/06 2:31 PM, "Chris Mair" <list@1006.org> wrote:
>
> > Doing what http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jkshah suggests:
> >   wal_sync_method = fsync (unchanged)
> >   wal_buffers = 128 (was 8)
> >   checkpoint_segments = 128 (was 3)
> >   bgwriter_all_percent = 0 (was 0.333)
> >   bgwriter_all_maxpages = 0 (was 5)
> > and leaving everything else default (solarispackages from pgfoundry)
> > increased performance ~ 7 times!
>
> In the recent past, Jignesh Shaw of Sun MDE discovered that changing the
> bgwriter_* parameters to zero had a dramatic positive impact on performance.

This essentially means stopping all bgwriter activity, thereby deferring
all I/O until checkpoint.  Was this considered?  With
checkpoint_segments to 128, it wouldn't surprise me that there wasn't
any checkpoint executed at all during the whole test ...

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Juan Casero \(FL FLC\)"
Date:
Subject: Re: Sun Fire T2000 and PostgreSQL 8.1.3
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Sun Fire T2000 and PostgreSQL 8.1.3