Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.10.1512162015360.31973@sto
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: checkpointer continuous flushing  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
Re: checkpointer continuous flushing
List pgsql-hackers
Hello Tomas,

> I'm planning to do some thorough benchmarking of the patches proposed in this 
> thread, on various types of hardware (10k SAS drives and SSDs). But is that 
> actually needed? I see Andres did some testing, as he posted summary of the 
> results on 11/12, but I don't see any actual results or even info about what 
> benchmarks were done (pgbench?).
>
> If yes, do we only want to compare 0001-ckpt-14-andres.patch against master, 
> or do we need to test one of the previous Fabien's patches?

My 0.02€,

Although I disagree with some aspects of Andres patch, I'm not a committer 
and I'm tired of arguing. I'm just planing to do minor changes to Andres 
version to fix a potential issue if the file is closed which flushing is 
in progress, but that will not change the overall shape of it.

So testing on Andres version seems relevant to me.

For SSD the performance impact should be limited. For disk it should be 
significant if there is no big cache in front of it. There were some 
concerns raised for some loads in the thread (shared memory smaller than 
needed I think?), if you can include such cases that would be great. My 
guess is that it should be not very beneficial in this case because the 
writing is mostly done by bgwriter & worker in this case, and these are 
still random.

-- 
Fabien.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: fix for readline terminal size problems when window is resized with open pager
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: fix for readline terminal size problems when window is resized with open pager