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?
Thanks,
--
-David
david@pgmasters.net
