At 10:56 27/02/01 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>> > I agree that 30k looks like the magic delay, and probably 30/5 would be a
>> > good conservative choice. But now I think about the choice of number, I
>> > think it must vary with the speed of the machine and length of the
>> > transactions; at 20tps, each TX is completing in around 50ms.
>
>I think disk speed should probably be the main factor.
>After the first run 30k/5 also seemed the best here, but running the test
>again shows, that the results are only reproducible after a new initdb.
>Anybody else see reproducible results without previous initdb ?
I think we want something that reflects the chance of a time-saving as a
result of a wait, which is why I suggested having each backend monitor
commits/sec, then basing the delay on some % of that number. eg. if
commits/sec = 1, then it's either low-load, or long tx's, in either case
CommitDelay won't help. Similarly, if we have 1000 commits/sec, then we
have a very fast system and/or disk, and CommitDelay of 10ms is clearly
glacial.
AFAICS, dynamically monitoring commits/sec (or a similar statistic) is
TOWTG, but in all cases we need to set a max on CommitDelay to prevent
individual TXs getting too long (although I am unsure if the latter is
*really* necessary, it is far better to be safe).
Note: commits/sec need to be kept for each backend so we can remove the
contribution of the backend that is considering waiting.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| | --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
