Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering

From: Xiaoning Ding
Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering
Date: ,
Msg-id: 46153E7D.7030208@cse.ohio-state.edu
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones)
Responses: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones)
Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ()
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Xiaoning Ding <-state.edu>, )
 Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
  Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Xiaoning Ding <-state.edu>, )
   Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
    Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ("Alex Deucher", )
     Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Xiaoning Ding <-state.edu>, )
      Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ("Alex Deucher", )
      Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (, )
   Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (, )
    Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
     Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (, )
  Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Mark Lewis, )
   Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
    Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Mark Lewis, )
     Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  (Erik Jones, )
      Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering  ("Jim C. Nasby", )

Erik Jones wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Xiaoning Ding wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> A page may be double buffered in PG's buffer pool and in OS's buffer
>> cache.
>> Other DBMS like DB2 and Oracle has provided Direct I/O option to eliminate
>> double buffering. I noticed there were discusses on the list. But
>> I can not find similar option in PG. Does PG support direct I/O now?
>>
>> The tuning guide of PG usually recommends a small shared buffer pool
>> (compared
>> to the size of physical memory).  I think it is to avoid swapping. If
>> there were
>> swapping, OS kernel may swap out some pages in PG's buffer pool even PG
>> want to keep them in memory. i.e. PG would loose full control over
>> buffer pool.
>> A large buffer pool is not good because it may
>> 1. cause more pages double buffered, and thus decrease the efficiency of
>> buffer
>> cache and buffer pool.
>> 2. may cause swapping.
>> Am I right?
>>
>> If PG's buffer pool is small compared with physical memory, can I say
>> that the
>> hit ratio of PG's buffer pool is not so meaningful because most misses
>> can be
>> satisfied by OS Kernel's buffer cache?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> To the best of my knowledge, Postgres itself does not have a direct IO
> option (although it would be a good addition).  So, in order to use
> direct IO with postgres you'll need to consult your filesystem docs for
> how to set the forcedirectio mount option.  I believe it can be set
> dynamically, but if you want it to be permanent you'll to add it to your
> fstab/vfstab file.

I use Linux.  It supports direct I/O on a per-file basis only.  To
bypass OS buffer cache,
files should be opened with O_DIRECT option.  I afraid that I have to
modify PG.

Xiaoning
>
> erik jones < <mailto:>>
> software developer
> 615-296-0838
> emma(r)
>
>
>



pgsql-performance by date:

From: Vincenzo Romano
Date:
Subject: Re: Weird performance drop
From: david@lang.hm
Date:
Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering