Re: initdb and fsync

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: initdb and fsync
Date: 2012-07-13 23:43:14
Message-ID: 28922.1342222994@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> One point about the commit message: fadvise does not block to go into
> the request queue, sync_file_range does. The problem with fadvise is
> that, when the request queue is small, it fills up so fast that most of
> the requests never make it in, and fadvise is essentially a no-op.
> sync_file_range waits for room in the queue, which is (based on my
> tests) enough to improve the scheduling a lot.

I see. I misunderstood your previous message. In that case, it seems
quite likely that it might be helpful if copy_file were to aggregate
the fadvise/sync_file_range calls over larger pieces of the file.
(I'm assuming that the request queue isn't bright enough to aggregate
by itself, though that might be wrong.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa 2012-07-14 00:09:29 Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux
Previous Message Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa 2012-07-13 23:38:19 Re: Synchronous Standalone Master Redoux