From: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Revisiting disk layout on ZFS systems |
Date: | 2014-04-28 18:07:22 |
Message-ID: | 535E98DA.7080702@denninger.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 4/28/2014 1:04 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 06:47 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:
>> What I am curious about, however, is the xlog -- that appears to suffer
>> pretty badly from 128k record size, although it compresses even
>> more-materially; 1.94x (!)
>>
>> The files in the xlog directory are large (16MB each) and thus "first
>> blush" would be that having a larger record size for that storage area
>> would help. It appears that instead it hurts.
>
> The WAL is fsync'd frequently. My guess is that that causes a lot of
> extra work to repeatedly recompress the same data, or something like
> that.
>
> - Heikki
>
It shouldn't as ZFS re-writes on change, and what's showing up is not
high I/O *count* but rather percentage-busy, which implies lots of head
movement (that is, lots of sub-allocation unit writes.)
Isn't WAL essentially sequential writes during normal operation?
--
-- Karl
karl(at)denninger(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-04-28 18:22:36 | Re: Revisiting disk layout on ZFS systems |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-04-28 18:04:02 | Re: Revisiting disk layout on ZFS systems |