From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgresql latency & bgwriter not doing its job |
Date: | 2014-09-02 15:04:35 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xf3gjRoY9xyxuCqU70YzuWm7fPLivRAGd-TXFOErrF-A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
>
> I have not found any mean to force bgwriter to send writes when it can.
>>> (Well, I have: create a process which sends "CHECKPOINT" every 0.2
>>> seconds... it works more or less, but this is not my point:-)
>>>
>>
>> There is scan_whole_pool_milliseconds, which currently forces bgwriter to
>> circle the buffer pool at least once every 2 minutes. It is currently
>> fixed, but it should be trivial to turn it into an experimental guc that
>> you could use to test your hypothesis.
>>
>
> I recompiled with the variable coldly set to 1000 instead of 120000. The
> situation is slightly degraded (15% of transactions were above 200 ms
> late). However it seems that bgwriter did not write much more pages:
>
You should probably try it set to 200 rather than 1000, to put it on an
equal footing with the checkpoint_timeout of 0.2 seconds you reported on.
Not that I think this will improve the situation. Afterall, my theory is
that it does not matter who *writes* the pages, it only matters how they
get fsynced.
>
> buffers_checkpoint = 26065
> buffers_clean = 5263
> buffers_backend = 367
>
> Or I may have a problem interpreting pg_stat_bgwriter.
>
For this experiment, what was checkpoint_timeout set to?
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2014-09-02 15:08:26 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM RESET? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2014-09-02 15:03:02 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |