Re: Load distributed checkpoint - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Inaam Rana
Subject Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Date
Msg-id 833c669b0702261020i225fb7f0rd38cc38a5a78d614@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Load distributed checkpoint  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Load distributed checkpoint  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers


On 12/19/06, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
"Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> I performed some simple tests, and I'll show the results below.

> (1) The default case
> 235  80  226 77  240
> (2) No write case
> 242  250  244  253  280
> (3) No checkpoint case
> 229  252  256  292  276
> (4) No fsync() case
> 236  112  215  216  221
> (5) No write by PostgreSQL, but fsync() by another program case
> 9  223  260  283  292
> (6) case (5) + O_SYNC by write_fsync
> 97  114  126  112  125
> (7) O_SYNC case
> 182  103  41  50  74

I posted a patch to PATCHES. Please try out it.
It does write() smoothly, but fsync() at a burst.
I suppose the result will be between (3) and (5).


Itagaki,

Did you had a chance to look into this any further? We, at EnterpriseDB, have done some testing on this patch (dbt2 runs) and it looks like we are getting the desired results, particularly so when we spread out both sync and write phases.

--
Inaam Rana
EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: conversion efforts (Re: SCMS question)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Deadlock with pg_dump?