Greetings,
* Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> There was very interesting presentation at pgconf about pg_prefaulter:
>
> http://www.pgcon.org/2018/schedule/events/1204.en.html
I agree and I've chatted a bit w/ Sean further about it.
> But it is implemented in GO and using pg_waldump.
Yeah, that's not too good if we want it in core.
> I tried to do the same but using built-on Postgres WAL traverse functions.
> I have implemented it as extension for simplicity of integration.
> In principle it can be started as BG worker.
I don't think this needs to be, or should be, an extension.. If this is
worthwhile (and it certainly appears to be) then we should just do it in
core.
> First of all I tried to estimate effect of preloading data.
> I have implemented prefetch utility with is also attached to this mail.
> It performs random reads of blocks of some large file and spawns some number
> of prefetch threads:
>
> Just normal read without prefetch:
> ./prefetch -n 0 SOME_BIG_FILE
>
> One prefetch thread which uses pread:
> ./prefetch SOME_BIG_FILE
>
> One prefetch thread which uses posix_fadvise:
> ./prefetch -f SOME_BIG_FILE
>
> 4 prefetch thread which uses posix_fadvise:
> ./prefetch -f -n 4 SOME_BIG_FILE
>
> Based on this experiments (on my desktop), I made the following conclusions:
>
> 1. Prefetch at HDD doesn't give any positive effect.
> 2. Using posix_fadvise allows to speed-up random read speed at SSD up to 2
> times.
> 3. posix_fadvise(WILLNEED) is more efficient than performing normal reads.
> 4. Calling posix_fadvise in more than one thread has no sense.
Ok.
> I have tested wal_prefetch at two powerful servers with 24 cores, 3Tb NVME
> RAID 10 storage device and 256Gb of RAM connected using InfiniBand.
> The speed of synchronous replication between two nodes is increased from 56k
> TPS to 60k TPS (on pgbench with scale 1000).
I'm also surprised that it wasn't a larger improvement.
Seems like it would make sense to implement in core using
posix_fadvise(), perhaps in the wal receiver and in RestoreArchivedFile
or nearby.. At least, that's the thinking I had when I was chatting w/
Sean.
Thanks!
Stephen
