Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >> > Now, O_SYNC is going to force every write to the disk. If we have a
> >> > transaction that has to write lots of buffers (has to write them to
> >> > reuse the shared buffer)
> >>
> >> So make the background writer/checkpointer keeping the LRU head clean. I
> >> explained that 3 times now.
> >
> > If the background cleaner has to not just write() but write/fsync or
> > write/O_SYNC, it isn't going to be able to clean them fast enough. It
> > creates a bottleneck where we didn't have one before.
> >
> > We are trying to eliminate an I/O storm during checkpoint, but the
> > solutions seem to be making the non-checkpoint times slower.
> >
>
> It looks as if you're assuming that I am making the backends unable to
> write on their own, so that they have to wait on the checkpointer. I
> never said that.

Maybe I missed it but are those backend now doing write or write/fsync?
If the former, that is fine. If the later, it does seem slower than it
used to be.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073