From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: further testing on IDE drives |
Date: | 2003-10-10 15:27:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0310100926260.19052-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> scott.marlowe wrote:
> > I was testing to get some idea of how to speed up the speed of pgbench
> > with IDE drives and the write caching turned off in Linux (i.e. hdparm -W0
> > /dev/hdx).
> >
> > The only parameter that seems to make a noticeable difference was setting
> > wal_sync_method = open_sync. With it set to either fsync, or fdatasync,
> > the speed with pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 ran from 11 to 17 tps. With open_sync
> > it jumped to the range of 45 to 52 tps. with write cache on I was getting
> > 280 to 320 tps. so, not instead of being 20 to 30 times slower, I'm only
> > about 5 times slower, much better.
> >
> > Now I'm off to start a "pgbench -c 10 -t 10000" and pull the power cord
> > and see if the data gets corrupted with write caching turned on, i.e. do
> > my hard drives have the ability to write at least some of their cache
> > during spin down.
>
> Is this a reason we should switch to open_sync as a default, if it is
> availble, rather than fsync? I think we are doing a single write before
> fsync a lot more often than we are doing multiple writes before fsync.
Sounds reasonable to me. Are there many / any scenarios where a plain
fsync would be faster than open_sync?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rob Nagler | 2003-10-10 15:46:37 | Re: Speeding up Aggregates |
Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-10-10 15:26:24 | Re: further testing on IDE drives |