On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... We are trying to measure the behavior when kernel
> >> caching is not helpful; if the database fits in RAM then you are just
> >> naturally going to get random_page_cost close to 1, because the kernel
> >> will avoid doing any I/O at all.
>
> > Um...yeah; another reason to use randread against a raw disk device.
> > (A little hard to use on linux systems, I bet, but works fine on
> > BSD systems.)
>
> Umm... not really; surely randread wouldn't know anything about
> read-ahead logic?
Randread doesn't know anything about read-ahead logic, but I don't
see how that matters one way or the other. The chances of it reading
blocks sequentially are pretty much infinitesimal if you're reading
across a reasonably large area of disk (I recommend at least 4GB),
so readahead will never be triggered.
> The reason this is a difficult topic is that we are trying to measure
> certain kernel behaviors --- namely readahead for sequential reads ---
> and not others --- namely caching, because we have other parameters
> of the cost models that purport to deal with that.
Well, for the sequential reads, the readahead should be trigerred
even when reading from a raw device. So just use dd to measure
that. If you want to slightly more accurately model postgres'
behaviour, you probably want to pick a random area of the disk,
read a gigabyte, switch areas, read another gigabyte, and so on.
This will model the "split into 1GB" files thing.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're
alllight. --XTC
