Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for stable transaction responses
Date: 2013-06-26 11:15:59
Message-ID: 51CACD6F.2060804@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26.06.2013 11:37, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>>> Hmm, so the write patch doesn't do much, but the fsync patch makes
>>>> the response
>>>> times somewhat smoother. I'd suggest that we drop the write patch
>>>> for now, and focus on the fsyncs.
>
> Write patch is effective in TPS!

Your test results don't agree with that. You got 3465.96 TPS with the
write patch, and 3474.62 and 3469.03 without it. The fsync+write
combination got slightly more TPS than just the fsync patch, but only by
about 1%, and then the response times were worse.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2013-06-26 11:16:41 Re: [PATCH] add --progress option to pgbench (submission 3)
Previous Message Jeevan Chalke 2013-06-26 11:12:42 Re: checking variadic "any" argument in parser - should be array