From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Streaming replication on win32, still broken |
Date: | 2010-02-18 11:14:50 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c1002180314g56e82fd0g472845ed28b6deec@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/2/18 Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> O_DIRECT helps us when we're not going to read the file again, because
>>> we don't waste cache on it. If we are, which is the case here, it
>>> should be really bad for performance, since we actually have to do a
>>> physical read.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, that should also apply to general WAL when archive_mdoe
>>> is on. Do we optimize for that?
>>
>> Hmm, no we don't. We do take that into account so that we refrain from
>> issuing posix_fadvice(DONTNEED) if archive_mode is on, but we don't
>> disable O_DIRECT. Maybe we should..
>
> Since the performance of WAL write is more important than that of WAL
> archiving in general, that optimization might offer little benefit.
Well, it's going to make the process that reads the WAL cause actual
physical I/O... That'll take a chunk out of your total available I/O,
which is likely to push you to the limit of your I/O capacity much
quicker.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-02-18 11:37:18 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-18 11:14:15 | Re: Streaming replication and unfit messages |