Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?
Date
Msg-id 20190709001155.n75zjw66tpho224w@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul  3, 2019 at 11:42:49AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:24 AM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Maybe. And it would probably work for the systems I used for benchmarks.
> >
> > It however assumes two things: (a) the storage system actually has
> > spindles and (b) you know how many spindles there are. Which is becoming
> > less and less safe these days - flash storage becomes pretty common, and
> > even when there are spindles they are often hidden behind the veil of
> > virtualization in a SAN, or something.
> 
> Yeah, that's true.
> 
> > I wonder if we might provide something like pg_test_prefetch which would
> > measure performance with different values, similarly to pg_test_fsync.
> 
> That's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure if the results that we got in
> a synthetic test - presumably unloaded - would be a good guide to what
> to use in a production situation.  Maybe it would; I'm just not sure.

I think it would be better than what we have now.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and KeyManagement Service (KMS)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb