RE: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: RE: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace
Date: 2001-03-10 04:15:14
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D330D@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > So seems we can use O_DSYNC without losing log write performance
> > comparing with write() + fsync. Though, we didn't tested write() +
> > fdatasync() yet...
>
> Good point, we should check fdatasync() too --- although I have no
> machines where it's different from fsync().

I've tested it on Solaris - not better than O_DSYNC (expected, taking
in account that O_DSYNC results don't depend on block counts).

Ok, I've made changes in xlog.c and run tests: 50 clients inserted
(int4, text[1-256]) into 50 tables,
-B 16384, -wal_buffers 256, -wal_files 0.

FSYNC: 257tps
O_DSYNC: 333tps

Just(?) 30% faster, -:(
But I had no ability to place log on separate disk, yet...

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-03-10 04:33:07 Re: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-03-10 02:53:12 Re: AW: AW: AW: WAL does not recover gracefully from ou t-of -dis k-sp ace