From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: bgwriter changes |
Date: | 2004-12-15 14:33:16 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D276@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The two alternative algorithms are similar, but have these
> differences:
> The former (option (2)) finds a constant number of dirty pages, though
> has varying search time.
This has the disadvantage of converging against 0 dirty pages.
A system that has less than maxpages dirty will write every page with
every bgwriter run.
> The latter (option (3)) has constant search
> time, yet finds a varying number of dirty pages.
This might have the disadvantage of either leaving too much for the
checkpoint or writing too many dirty pages in one run. Is writing a lot
in one run actually a problem though ? Or does the bgwriter pause
periodically while writing the pages of one run ?
If this is expressed in pages it would naturally need to be more than the
current maxpages (to accomodate for clean pages). The suggested 2% sounded
way too low for me (that leaves 98% to the checkpoint).
Also I think we are doing too frequent checkpoints with bgwriter in
place. Every 15-30 minutes should be sufficient, even for benchmarks.
We need a tuned bgwriter for this though.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-12-15 15:34:03 | Re: production server down |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-12-15 13:47:38 | strange regression failure |