Re: Does larger i/o size make sense?

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A few days before, I got a question as described in the subject line on
> a discussion with my colleague.
>
> In general, larger i/o size per system call gives us wider bandwidth on
> sequential read, than multiple system calls with smaller i/o size.
> Probably, people knows this heuristics.
>
> On the other hand, PostgreSQL always reads database files by BLCKSZ
> (= usually, 8KB) when referenced block was not on the shared buffer,
> however, it doesn't seem to me it can pull maximum performance of
> modern storage system.
>
> I'm not certain whether we had discussed this kind of ideas, or not.
> So, I'd like to see the reason why we stick on the fixed length i/o size,
> if similar ideas were rejected before.
>
> An idea that I'd like to investigate is, PostgreSQL allocates a set of
> continuous buffers to fit larger i/o size when block is referenced due to
> sequential scan, then invokes consolidated i/o request on the buffer.
> It probably make sense if we can expect upcoming block references
> shall be on the neighbor blocks; that is typical sequential read workload.
>
> Of course, we shall need to solve some complicated stuff, like prevention
> of fragmentation on shared buffers, or enhancement of internal APIs of
> storage manager to accept larger i/o size.
> Furthermore, it seems to me this idea has worth to investigate.
>
> Any comments please. Thanks,

Isn't this dealt with at least in part by effective i/o concurrency
and o/s readahead?

merlin