From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Guy Thornley <guy(at)esphion(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: O_DIRECT setting |
Date: | 2004-09-23 13:35:45 |
Message-ID: | 200409231335.i8NDZjR21993@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
TODO has:
* Consider use of open/fcntl(O_DIRECT) to minimize OS caching
Should the item be removed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 17:57, Guy Thornley wrote:
> > According to the manpage, O_DIRECT implies O_SYNC:
> >
> > File I/O is done directly to/from user space buffers. The I/O is
> > synchronous, i.e., at the completion of the read(2) or write(2)
> > system call, data is guaranteed to have been transferred.
>
> This seems like it would be a rather large net loss. PostgreSQL already
> structures writes so that the writes we need to hit disk immediately
> (WAL records) are fsync()'ed -- the kernel is given more freedom to
> schedule how other writes are flushed from the cache. Also, my
> recollection is that O_DIRECT also disables readahead -- if that's
> correct, that's not what we want either.
>
> BTW, using O_DIRECT has been discussed a few times in the past. Have you
> checked the list archives? (for both -performance and -hackers)
>
> > Would people be interested in a performance benchmark?
>
> Sure -- I'd definitely be curious, although as I said I'm skeptical it's
> a win.
>
> > I need some benchmark tips :)
>
> Some people have noted that it can be difficult to use contrib/pgbench
> to get reproducible results -- you might want to look at Jan's TPC-W
> implementation or the OSDL database benchmarks:
>
> http://pgfoundry.org/projects/tpc-w-php/
> http://www.osdl.org/lab_activities/kernel_testing/osdl_database_test_suite/
>
> > Incidentally, postgres heap files suffer really, really bad fragmentation,
> > which affects sequential scan operations (VACUUM, ANALYZE, REINDEX ...)
> > quite drastically. We have in-house patches that somewhat alleiviate this,
> > but they are not release quality.
>
> Can you elaborate on these "in-house patches"?
>
> -Neil
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-09-23 14:04:20 | Re: 7.4 vs 7.3 ( hash join issue ) |
Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-09-23 08:52:21 | Re: Caching of Queries |