| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: in defensive of zone_reclaim_mode on linux |
| Date: | 2015-09-06 15:01:28 |
| Message-ID: | 14335.1441551688@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-09-04 15:37:47 -0700, Ben Chobot wrote:
>> Our situation might not apply to you. But if it does, give zone_reclaim_mode a chance. It's not (always) as bad as others have made it out to be.
> To me that sounds like the negative impact of transparent hugepages
> being mitigated to some degree by zone reclaim mode (which'll avoid some
> cross-node transfers).
Worth noting here is that Ben is running a 3.13 Linux kernel --- I think
most of the bad rap that zone_reclaim_mode has accumulated comes from
experience with significantly older kernels. (Which is not to say that
I have heard that the kernel crowd has fixed it. But maybe they did.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ben Chobot | 2015-09-06 16:05:42 | Re: in defensive of zone_reclaim_mode on linux |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-06 11:07:46 | Re: in defensive of zone_reclaim_mode on linux |