Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Date: 2013-12-03 20:35:06
Message-ID: 27536.1386102906@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
> If we care about our performance on various operating systems it is
> _OUR_ responsibility to track that closely and automated and report back
> and only if that feedback loop fails to work we are actually in a real
> position to consider something as drastical as considering a platform
> "undependable" or looking into alternatives (like directIO).

+1. I fail to understand why anyone would think it's a good idea for us
to build our own I/O stack. The resources that would be consumed by that
would probably be enough to sink the project, or at least ensure that we
made no progress on any other aspect of the system for a good long time.
(And I'm just talking development, never mind maintenance.)

Far better to invest some effort in providing decent feedback to the
platforms we depend on.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-12-03 20:46:09 Re: pgsql: Fix a couple of bugs in MultiXactId freezing
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-12-03 20:19:26 Re: logical changeset generation v6.7