Re: NUMA packaging and patch

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: NUMA packaging and patch
Date: 2014-06-09 16:09:59
Message-ID: 20140609160959.GD8406@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-06-09 08:59:03 -0700, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > *) There is a lot of advice floating around (for example here:
> > http://frosty-postgres.blogspot.com/2012/08/postgresql-numa-and-zone-reclaim-mode.html )
> > to instruct operators to disable zone_reclaim.  Will your changes
> > invalidate any of that advice?
>
> I expect that it will make the need for that far less acute,
> although it is probably still best to disable zone_reclaim (based
> on the documented conditions under which disabling it makes sense).

I think it'll still be important unless you're running an OLTP workload
(i.e. minimal per backend allocations) and your entire workload fits
into shared buffers. What zone_reclaim > 0 essentially does is to never
allocate memory from remote nodes. I.e. it will throw away all numa node
local OS cache to satisfy a memory allocation (including
pagefaults).
I honestly wouldn't expect this to make a huge difference *wrt*
zone_reclaim_mode.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-06-09 16:31:41 Re: performance regression in 9.2/9.3
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2014-06-09 15:59:03 Re: NUMA packaging and patch