Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoaRSiD0=ufEsL6sfKecHuxFWqAMcQvqOdoLJdPWS2Nokg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 11:24 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Maybe. And it would probably work for the systems I used for benchmarks.
>
> It however assumes two things: (a) the storage system actually has
> spindles and (b) you know how many spindles there are. Which is becoming
> less and less safe these days - flash storage becomes pretty common, and
> even when there are spindles they are often hidden behind the veil of
> virtualization in a SAN, or something.

Yeah, that's true.

> I wonder if we might provide something like pg_test_prefetch which would
> measure performance with different values, similarly to pg_test_fsync.

That's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure if the results that we got in
a synthetic test - presumably unloaded - would be a good guide to what
to use in a production situation.  Maybe it would; I'm just not sure.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Increasing default value for effective_io_concurrency?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Show detailed table persistence in \dt+