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 #