| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers. |
| Date: | 2017-04-27 23:34:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20170427233433.eg5vwlvbqyc2nruh@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On 2017-04-28 01:29:14 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I can confirm this observation. I bought the Intel 750 NVMe SSD last year,
> the device has 1GB DDR3 cache on it (power-loss protected), can do ~1GB/s of
> sustained O_DIRECT sequential writes. But when running pgbench, I can't push
> more than ~300MB/s of WAL to it, no matter what I do because of
> WALWriteLock.
Hm, interesting. Even if you up wal_buffers to 128MB, use
synchronous_commit = off, and play with wal_writer_delay/flush_after?
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Sewell | 2017-04-28 00:45:13 | Logical slot preservation after physical failover |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-04-27 23:29:14 | Re: [PERFORM] Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-04-29 00:41:19 | Re: Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers. |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-04-27 23:29:14 | Re: [PERFORM] Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers. |