Re: Sorted writes in checkpoint - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Added to TODO:

* Consider sorting writes during checkpoint
 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00541.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> 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-writes patch base on Heikki's
> ldc-justwrites-1.patch. There was obvious performance win on OLTP workload.
> 
>   tests                    | pgbench | DBT-2 response time (avg/90%/max)
> ---------------------------+---------+-----------------------------------
>  LDC only                  | 181 tps | 1.12 / 4.38 / 12.13 s
>  + BM_CHECKPOINT_NEEDED(*) | 187 tps | 0.83 / 2.68 /  9.26 s
>  + Sorted writes           | 224 tps | 0.36 / 0.80 /  8.11 s
> 
> (*) Don't write buffers that were dirtied after starting the checkpoint.
> 
> machine : 2GB-ram, SCSI*4 RAID-5
> pgbench : -s400 -t40000 -c10  (about 5GB of database)
> DBT-2   : 60WH (about 6GB of database)
> 
> 
> > I think it has the potential to improve things.  There are three obvious 
> > and one subtle argument against it I can think of:
> > 
> > 1) Extra complexity for something that may not help.  This would need some 
> > good, robust benchmarking improvements to justify its use.
> 
> 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 are text-based.
> 
> 
> > 2) Block number ordering may not reflect actual order on disk.  While 
> > true, it's got to be better correlated with it than writing at random.
> > 3) The OS disk elevator should be dealing with this issue, particularly 
> > because it may really know the actual disk ordering.
> 
> Yes, both are true. However, I think there is pretty high correlation
> in those orderings. In addition, we should use filesystem to assure
> those orderings correspond to each other. For example, pre-allocation
> of files might help us, as has often been discussed.
> 
> 
> > Here's the subtle thing:  by writing in the same order the LRU scan occurs 
> > in, you are writing dirty buffers in the optimal fashion to eliminate 
> > client backend writes during BuferAlloc.  This makes the checkpoint a 
> > really effective LRU clearing mechanism.  Writing in block order will 
> > change that.
> 
> The issue will probably go away after we have LDC, because it writes LRU
> buffers during checkpoints.
> 
> Regards,
> ---
> ITAGAKI Takahiro
> NTT Open Source Software Center
> 

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +