Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yeah, this is about what I was afraid of: if you're actually fsyncing
> then you get at best one commit per disk revolution, and the negotiation
> with the OS is down in the noise.
If we disable writeback-cache and use open_sync, the per-page writing
behavior in WAL module will show up as bad result. O_DIRECT is similar
to O_DSYNC (at least on linux), so that the benefit of it will disappear
behind the slow disk revolution.
In the current source, WAL is written as:
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) { write(&buffers[i], BLCKSZ); }
Is this intentional? Can we rewrite it as follows?
write(&buffers[0], N * BLCKSZ);
In order to achieve it, I wrote a 'gather-write' patch (xlog.gw.diff).
Aside from this, I'll also send the fixed direct io patch (xlog.dio.diff).
These two patches are independent, so they can be applied either or both.
I tested them on my machine and the results as follows. It shows that
direct-io and gather-write is the best choice when writeback-cache is off.
Are these two patches worth trying if they are used together?
| writeback | fsync= | fdata | open_ | fsync_ | open_
patch | cache | false | sync | sync | direct | direct
------------+-----------+--------+-------+-------+--------+---------
direct io | off | 124.2 | 105.7 | 48.3 | 48.3 | 48.2
direct io | on | 129.1 | 112.3 | 114.1 | 142.9 | 144.5
gather-write| off | 124.3 | 108.7 | 105.4 | (N/A) | (N/A)
both | off | 131.5 | 115.5 | 114.4 | 145.4 | 145.2
- 20runs * pgbench -s 100 -c 50 -t 200
- with tuning (wal_buffers=64, commit_delay=500, checkpoint_segments=8)
- using 2 ATA disks:
- hda(reiserfs) includes system and wal.
- hdc(jfs) includes database files. writeback-cache is always on.
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories