Re: Experimental patch for inter-page delay in VACUUM

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> 
>> > Jan Wieck wrote:
>> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Now, O_SYNC is going to force every write to the disk.  If we have a
>> >> > transaction that has to write lots of buffers (has to write them to
>> >> > reuse the shared buffer)
>> >> 
>> >> So make the background writer/checkpointer keeping the LRU head clean. I 
>> >> explained that 3 times now.
>> > 
>> > If the background cleaner has to not just write() but write/fsync or
>> > write/O_SYNC, it isn't going to be able to clean them fast enough.  It
>> > creates a bottleneck where we didn't have one before.
>> > 
>> > We are trying to eliminate an I/O storm during checkpoint, but the
>> > solutions seem to be making the non-checkpoint times slower.
>> > 
>> 
>> It looks as if you're assuming that I am making the backends unable to 
>> write on their own, so that they have to wait on the checkpointer. I 
>> never said that.
> 
> Maybe I missed it but are those backend now doing write or write/fsync? 
> If the former, that is fine.  If the later, it does seem slower than it
> used to be.

In my all_performance.v4.diff they do write and the checkpointer does 
write+sync.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #