Re: Experimental ARC implementation

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Experimental ARC implementation
Date: 2003-11-07 16:14:35
Message-ID: 3FABC4EB.7070908@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Jan Wieck wrote:

>> What doing frequent fdatasync/fsync during a constant ongoing checkpoint
>> will cause is to significantly lower the physical write storm happening
>> at the sync(), which is causing huge problems right now.
>
> I don't see that frankly because sync() is syncing everying on that
> machine, including other file systems. Reducing our own load from sync
> will not help with other applications writing to drives.

You have 4 kids, Bruce. If you buy only two lollypops, how many of them
can share the room unattended?

What I described is absolutely sufficient for a dedicated DB server. We
will be able to coordinate the resources between the various components
of PostgreSQL, no doubt. Everyone who has significant performance
problems because of I/O saturation, and is still keeping other I/O heavy
applications on the same box instead of separating the things, is either
not serious or dumb ... or both.

Jan

PS: I know your kids can, but it serves too well ... ;-)

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anastasios Hatzis 2003-11-07 16:26:18 PHB?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2003-11-07 16:14:11 Re: Information Schema and constraint names not unique