On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> On 3/8/17 8:36 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>>
>> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
>>>
>>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Sharma
>>> To start with, I ran the regression test-suite and didn't find any
>>> failures.
>>> But, then I am not sure if huge_pages are getting used or not. However,
>>> upon checking the settings for huge_pages and I found it as 'on'. I am
>>> assuming, if huge pages is not being used due to shortage of large pages,
>>> it should have fallen back to non-huge pages.
>>
>>
>> You are right, the server falls back to non-huge pages when the large
>> pages run short.
>>
>>> I also ran the pgbench tests on read-only workload and here are the
>>> results
>>> I got.
>>>
>>> pgbench -c 4 -j 4 - T 600 bench
>>>
>>> huge_pages=on, TPS = 21120.768085
>>> huge_pages=off, TPS = 20606.288995
>>
>>
>> Thanks. It's about 2% improvement, which is the same as what I got.
>>
>>
>> From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com]
>>>
>>> The line beginning 'Huge pages are known as...' has been accidentally
>>> duplicated.
>>
>>
>> Oops, how careless I was. Fixed. As Ashutosh referred, I added a very
>> simple suggestion to use Windows Group Policy tool.
>
>
> Amit, Magnus, you are signed up as reviewers for this patch. Do you know
> when you'll have a chance to take a look?
>
I have provided my feedback and I could not test it on my machine. I
think Ashutosh Sharma has tested it. I can give it another look, but
not sure if it helps.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
