Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,<david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Jeff Janes" <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Jim Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes
Date: 2012-01-04 21:02:16
Message-ID: 4F0469F802000025000443AB@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 2. The CLOG code isn't designed to manage a large number of
> buffers, so adding more might cause a performance regression on
> small systems.
>
> On Nate Boley's 32-core system, running pgbench at scale factor
> 100, the optimal number of buffers seems to be around 32. I'd
> like to get some test results from smaller systems - any chance
> you (or anyone) have, say, an 8-core box you could test on?

Hmm. I can think of a lot of 4-core servers I could test on. (We
have a few poised to go into production where it would be relatively
easy to do benchmarking without distorting factors right now.)
After that we jump to 16 cores, unless I'm forgetting something.
These are currently all in production, but some of them are
redundant machines which could be pulled for a few hours here and
there for benchmarks. If either of those seem worthwhile, please
spec the useful tests so I can capture the right information.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-01-04 21:06:45 Re: Regarding Checkpoint Redo Record
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-01-04 20:56:41 Re: PL/Perl Does not Like vstrings