From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Guy Thornley <guy(at)esphion(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: O_DIRECT setting |
Date: | 2004-09-30 03:03:38 |
Message-ID: | 8906.1096513418@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
> I talked to Jan a little about this during OSCon since Linux filesystems
> (ext2, ext3, etc) let you use O_DIRECT. He felt the only place where
> PostgreSQL may benefit from this now, without managing its own buffer first,
> would be with the log writer. I'm probably going to get this wrong, but
> he thought it would be interesting to try an experiment by taking X number
> of pages to be flushed, sort them (by age? where they go on disk?) and
> write them out.
Hmm. Most of the time the log writer has little choice about page write
order --- certainly if all your transactions are small it's not going to
have any choice. I think this would mainly be equivalent to O_SYNC with
the extra feature of stopping the kernel from buffering the WAL data in
its own buffer cache. Which is probably useful, but I doubt it's going
to make a huge difference.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guy Thornley | 2004-09-30 07:02:32 | Re: O_DIRECT setting |
Previous Message | Mark Wong | 2004-09-30 01:45:10 | Re: O_DIRECT setting |