Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19
Date: 2011-03-21 17:04:46
Message-ID: AANLkTi=ZM=uBE70qLsuPL6W7pe47GvQ+VLui7WgdDneH@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> pgbench -i -s 50 test
> Two runs of "pgbench -c 10 -M prepared -T 600 test" with 1 sync standby -
> server configs etc were mailed upthread.
>
>> - performance as of commit e148443ddd95cd29edf4cc1de6188eb9cee029c5
>
> 1158 and 1306 (avg 1232)
>>
>> - performance as of current git master
>
> 1181 and 1280 (avg 1230,5)
>>
>> - performance as of current git master with
>> sync-standbys-defined-rearrangement applied
>
> 1152 and 1269 (avg 1210,5)

Hmm, that doesn't appear to show the 20% regression Simon claimed
upthread. That's good... but I'm confused as to how you are getting
numbers this high at all without a BBU. If every commit has to wait
for two consecutive fsyncs, cranking out 1200+ commits per second is a
lot. Maybe it's just barely plausible if these are 15K drives and all
the commits are piggybacking on the fsyncs at top speed, but, man,
that's fast.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-03-21 17:05:25 Re: Rectifying wrong Date outputs
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2011-03-21 16:47:21 Re: 2nd Level Buffer Cache