Re: Load distributed checkpoint - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ITAGAKI Takahiro
Subject Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Date
Msg-id 20061222173105.6431.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Load distributed checkpoint  ("Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> (1) Default case(this is show again for comparison and reminder)
> 235  80  226  77  240
> (2) Default + WAL 1MB case
> 302  328  82  330  85
> (3) Default + wal_sync_method=open_sync case
> 162  67  176  67  164
> (4) (2)+(3) case
> 322  350  85  321  84
> (5) (4) + /proc/sys/vm/dirty* tuning
> 308  349  84  349  84

(3) is very strange. Your machine seems to be too restricted
by WAL so that other factors cannot be measured properly.


I'll send results on my machine.

- Pentium4 3.6GHz with HT / 3GB RAM / Windows XP :-)
- shared_buffers=1GB
- wal_sync_method = open_datasync
- wal_buffers = 1MB
- checkpoint_segments = 16
- checkpoint_timeout = 5min

I repeated "pgbench -c16 -t500 -s50"
and picked up results around checkpoints.

[HEAD]
...
560.8
373.5 <- checkpoint is here
570.8
...

[with patch]
...
562.0
528.4 <- checkpoint (fsync) is here
547.0
...

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: xmlagg is not supported?
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: configure problem --with-libxml