From: | "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why does backend send buffer size hardcoded at 8KB? |
Date: | 2019-07-28 20:21:41 |
Message-ID: | 20190728202141.GA25242@hjp.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 2019-07-27 19:10:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2019-07-27 18:34:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Yeah. The existing commentary about that is basically justifying 8K
> >> as being large enough to avoid performance issues; if somebody can
> >> show that that's not true, I wouldn't have any hesitation about
> >> kicking it up.
>
> > You think that unnecessary fragmentation, which I did show, isn't good
> > enough? That does have cost on the network level, even if it possibly
> > doesn't show up that much in timing.
>
> I think it is worth doing some testing, rather than just blindly changing
> buffer size, because we don't know how much we'd have to change it to
> have any useful effect.
I did a little test with nttcp between two of our servers (1 Gbit to
different switches, switches connected by 10 Gbit). The difference
between a 1024 byte buffer and a 1460 byte buffer is small but
measurable. Anything larger doesn't make a difference. So increasing the
buffer beyond 8 kB probably doesn't improve performance on a 1 Gbit LAN.
I didn't test 10 Gbit LAN or WAN - those might be different.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | we build much bigger, better disasters now
|_|_) | | because we have much more sophisticated
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | management tools.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Ross Anderson <https://www.edge.org/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2019-07-28 20:24:39 | Re: Tablespace column value null on select * from pg_tables |
Previous Message | wambacher | 2019-07-28 16:32:04 | Re: logging "raise" to file |