RE: O_DIRECT for relations and SLRUs (Prototype)
От | Tsunakawa, Takayuki |
---|---|
Тема | RE: O_DIRECT for relations and SLRUs (Prototype) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FB664DC@G01JPEXMBYT05 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: O_DIRECT for relations and SLRUs (Prototype) (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael@paquier.xyz] > One of the reasons why I have begun this thread is that since we have heard > about the fsync issues on Linux, I think that there is room for giving our > user base more control of their fate without relying on the Linux community > decisions to potentially eat data and corrupt a cluster with a page dirty > bit cleared without its data actually flushed. Even the latest kernels > are not fixing all the patterns with open fds across processes, switching > the problem from one corner of the table to another, and there are folks > patching the Linux kernel to make Postgres more reliable from this > perspective, and living happily with this option. As long as the option > can be controlled and defaults to false, it seems to be that we could do > something. Even if the performance is bad, this gives the user control > of how he/she wants things to be done. Thank you for starting an interesting topic. We probably want the direct I/O. On a INSERT and UPDATE heavy system withPostgreSQL 9.2, we suffered from occasional high response times due to the Linux page cache activity. Postgres processescompeted for the page cache to read/write the data files, write online and archive WAL files, and write the serverlog files (auto_explain and autovacuum workers emitted a lot of logs.) The user with Oracle experience asked why PostgreSQLdoesn't handle database I/O by itself... And I wonder how useful the direct I/O for low latency devices like the persistent memory. The overhead of the page cachemay become relatively higher. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: