Re: checkpoints/bgwriter tuning verification

From: Steve Clark <sclark(at)netwolves(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, Postgres General Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: checkpoints/bgwriter tuning verification
Date: 2009-10-30 11:15:47
Message-ID: 4AEACAE3.2000701@netwolves.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 10/29/2009 04:42 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Vick Khera<vivek(at)khera(dot)org> wrote:
>> On my primary DB I'm observing random slowness which just doesn't make
>> sense to me. The I/O system can easily do 40MB/sec writes, but I'm
>> only seeing a sustained 5MB/sec, even as the application is stalling
>> waiting on the DB.
>
> Just one point on top of everything else you'll hear. 40 MB/sec
> sequential throughput does not equal 40MB/sec random PLUS checkpoint
> throughput. Random access is gonna lower that 40MB/sec way down real
> fast.
>
> First step to speed things up is putting pg_xlog on its own disk(s).
Hi Scott,

How exactly do you do this? By creating a link to the new location or
is there a config option somewhere that says where the pg_xlog resides?

Thanks,
Steve

> Since pg_xlog is mostly sequentially access, it's much faster when
> it's not competing with the rest of the db. THEN if you need faster
> disks you can buy them and throw them at path/data/base/. However,
> often just splitting things out like this will make a world of
> difference on a write heavy database.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sam Mason 2009-10-30 11:25:13 Re: Absolute value of intervals
Previous Message The Frog 2009-10-30 10:07:36 Correlated Subquery and calculated column non-functional