From: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | david(at)lang(dot)hm, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
Subject: | Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline |
Date: | 2010-02-10 17:22:57 |
Message-ID: | E0A555ED-AADE-4DD1-9F57-31A73002CB05@torgo.978.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Feb 10, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>> I'd done some testing a while ago on the schedulers and at the time
>> deadline or noop smashed cfq. Now, it is 100% possible since then
>> that they've made vast improvements to cfq and or the VM to get
>> better or similar performance. I recall a vintage of 2.6 where
>> they severely messed up the VM. Glad I didn't upgrade to that one :)
>>
>> Here's the old post: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-04/msg00155.php
>
> pgiosim doesn't really mix writes into there though, does it? The
> mixed read/write situations are the ones where the scheduler stuff
> gets messy.
>
It has the abillity to rewrite blocks randomly as well - but I
honestly don't remember if I did that during my cfq/deadline test.
I'd wager I didn't. Maybe I'll get some time to run some more tests
on it in the next couple days
> --
> Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
>
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-02-10 17:36:23 | Re: Deferred constraint and delete performance |
Previous Message | Justin Graf | 2010-02-10 16:43:43 | Re: How exactly PostgreSQL allocates memory for its needs? |