From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring |
Date: | 2007-03-07 05:11:38 |
Message-ID: | 20070307131820.5E23.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
> After a few months of staring at this data, I've found averages like that
> misleading. The real problem areas correlate with the peak pages written
> at any one checkpoint. Lowering that value is really the end-game for
> optimizing the background writer, and the peaks are what will nail you
> with a nasty fsync pause at checkpoint time.
If you've already had some technical knowledge to lead best settings from
activity logs, could you write it down in the codes? I hope some kinds of
automatic control features in bgwriter if its best configurations vary by
usages or activities.
BTW, I'm planning two changes in bgwriter.
[Load distributed checkpoint]
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-02/msg00522.php
[Automatic adjustment of bgwriter_lru_maxpages]
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2007-03/msg00092.php
I have some results that if we have plenty of time for checkpoints,
bgwriter_all_maxpages is not a so important parameter because it is
adjusted to "shared_buffers / duration of checkpoint".
Also, my recommended bgwriter_lru_maxpages is "average number of
recycled buffers per cycle", that is hardly able to tune manually.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | NikhilS | 2007-03-07 06:40:39 | Re: Auto creation of Partitions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-07 04:34:57 | Re: Aggressive freezing in lazy-vacuum |