Re: Fragmentation of WAL files - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Fragmentation of WAL files
Date
Msg-id 24354.1177601862@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fragmentation of WAL files  (Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>)
List pgsql-performance
> In response to Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>:
>> I was recently running defrag on my windows/parallels VM and noticed
>> a bunch of WAL files that defrag couldn't take care of, presumably
>> because the database was running. What's disturbing to me is that
>> these files all had ~2000 fragments.

It sounds like that filesystem is too stupid to coalesce successive
write() calls into one allocation fragment :-(.  I agree with the
comments that this might not be important, but you could experiment
to see --- try increasing the size of "zbuffer" in XLogFileInit to
maybe 16*XLOG_BLCKSZ, re-initdb, and see if performance improves.

The suggestion to use ftruncate is so full of holes that I won't
bother to point them all out, but certainly we could write more than
just XLOG_BLCKSZ at a time while preparing the file.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Bill Moran
Date:
Subject: Filesystem fragmentation (Re: Fragmentation of WAL files)
Next
From: "Craig A. James"
Date:
Subject: Re: Filesystem fragmentation (Re: Fragmentation of WAL files)