Hi George,
I have seen the 4M/sec problem first actually during an EAStress type
run with only 150 connections.
I will try to do more testing today that Tom has requested.
Regards,
Jignesh
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
>
>
>> CLOG data is not cached in any PostgreSQL shared memory segments and hence
>> becomes the bottleneck as it has to constantly go to the filesystem to get
>> the read data.
>>
>
> This is the same bottleneck you discussed earlier. CLOG reads are cached in
> the Postgres shared memory segment but only NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS are which
> defaults to 8 buffers of 8kb each. With 1,000 clients and the transaction rate
> you're running you needed a larger number of buffers.
>
> Using the filesystem buffer cache is also an entirely reasonable solution
> though. That's surely part of the logic behind not trying to keep more of the
> clog in shared memory. Do you have any measurements of how much time is being
> spent just doing the logical I/O to the buffer cache for the clog pages? 4MB/s
> seems like it's not insignificant but your machine is big enough that perhaps
> I'm thinking at the wrong scale.
>
> I'm really curious whether you see any benefit from the vxid read-only
> transactions. I'm not sure how to get an apples to apples comparison though.
> Ideally just comparing it to CVS HEAD from immediately prior to the vxid patch
> going in. Perhaps calling some function which forces an xid to be allocated
> and seeing how much it slows down the benchmark would be a good substitute.
>
>
