| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: initdb and fsync |
| Date: | 2012-07-13 23:43:14 |
| Message-ID: | 28922.1342222994@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> One point about the commit message: fadvise does not block to go into
> the request queue, sync_file_range does. The problem with fadvise is
> that, when the request queue is small, it fills up so fast that most of
> the requests never make it in, and fadvise is essentially a no-op.
> sync_file_range waits for room in the queue, which is (based on my
> tests) enough to improve the scheduling a lot.
I see. I misunderstood your previous message. In that case, it seems
quite likely that it might be helpful if copy_file were to aggregate
the fadvise/sync_file_range calls over larger pieces of the file.
(I'm assuming that the request queue isn't bright enough to aggregate
by itself, though that might be wrong.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa | 2012-07-14 00:09:29 | Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux |
| Previous Message | Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa | 2012-07-13 23:38:19 | Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux |