On 2014-08-27 10:10:49 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> >> [...] What's your evidence the pacing doesn't work? Afaik it's the fsync
> >> that causes the problem, not the the writes themselves.
> >
> >
> > Hmmm. My (poor) understanding is that fsync would work fine if everything
> > was already written beforehand:-) that is it has nothing to do but assess
> > that all is already written. If there is remaining write work, it starts
> > doing it "now" with the disastrous effects I'm complaining about.
> >
> > When I say "pacing does not work", I mean that things where not written out
> > to disk by the OS, it does not mean that pg did not ask for it.
> >
> > However it does not make much sense for an OS scheduler to wait several
> > minutes with tens of thousands of pages to write and do nothing about it...
> > So I'm wondering.
>
> Maybe what's needed, is to slightly tweak checkpoint logic to give the
> kernel some time to flush buffers.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the checkpointer does the sync right
> after the reads. Of course there will be about 30s-worth of
> accumulated writes (it's the default amount of time the kernel holds
> on to dirty buffers).
>
> Perhaps it should be delayed a small time, say 30s, to let the kernel
> do the writing on its own.
The kernel *starts* to write out pages after 30s, it doesn't finish
doing so. So I don't think that's going to work.
I think a somewhat smarter version of the explicit flushes in the
hack^Wpatch I posted nearby is going to more likely to be successful.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
