Re: wal_buffers, redux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: wal_buffers, redux
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobSzuco2-P5NSuup879jinFPMOSZcuNENjK+JU86aAoCQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: wal_buffers, redux  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: wal_buffers, redux
Re: wal_buffers, redux
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rerunning all 4 benchmarks (both 16MB and 32MB wal_buffers on both
> machines) with fsync=off (as well as synchronous_commit=off still)
> might help clarify things.

I reran the 32-client benchmark on the IBM machine with fsync=off and got this:

32MB: tps = 26809.442903 (including connections establishing)
16MB: tps = 26651.320145 (including connections establishing)

That's a speedup of nearly a factor of two, so clearly fsync-related
stalls are a big problem here, even with wal_buffers cranked up
through the ceiling.

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and statistics