Greg Smith a écrit :
> Rodger Donaldson wrote:
>> Cyril Scetbon wrote:
>>> Does anyone know what can be the differences between linux kernels
>>> 2.6.29 and 2.6.30 that can cause this big difference (TPS x 7 !)
>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2624_2633&num=2
>>>
>>
>> http://www.csamuel.org/2009/04/11/default-ext3-mode-changing-in-2630
>
> Yeah, I realized I answered the wrong question--Cyril wanted to know
> "why was 2.6.30 so much faster?", not "why did 2.6.33 get so much
> slower?", which is what I was focusing on. There's a good intro to
> what happened to speed up 2.6.30 at http://lwn.net/Articles/328363/ ,
> with the short version being "the kernel stopped caring about data
> integrity at all in 2.6.30 by switching to writeback as its default".
> The give you an idea how wacky this is, less than a year ago Linus
> himself was ranting about how terrible that specific implementation
> was: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/24/415
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/24/460 and making it the default exposes a
> regression to bad behavior to everyone who upgrades to a newer kernel.
>
> I'm just patiently waiting for Chris Mason (who works for Oracle--they
> care about doing the right thing here too) to replace Ted Tso as the
> person driving filesystem development in Linux land. That his
> "data=guarded" implementation was only partially merged into 2.6.30,
> and instead combined with this awful default change, speaks volumes
> about how far the Linux development priorities are out of sync (pun
> intended) with what database users expect. See
>
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Kernel-Log-What-s-coming-in-2-6-30-File-systems-New-and-revamped-file-systems-741319.html
> for a summary on how that drama played out. I let out a howling laugh
> when reading this was because "The rest have been put on hold, with
> the development cycle already entering the stabilisation phase."
> Linux kernel development hasn't had a stabilization phase in years.
>
> It's interesting that we have pgbench available as a lens to watch all
> this through, because in its TPC-B-like default mode it has an
> interesting property: if performance on regular hardware gets too
> fast, it means data integrity must be broken, because regular drives
> can't do physical commits very often. What Phoronix should be doing
> is testing simple fsync rate using something like sysbench first[1],
> and if those numbers come back higher than disk RPM rate declare the
> combination unusable for PostgreSQL purposes rather than reporting on
> the fake numbers.
>
> [1]
> http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/content/postgresql/pg-benchmarking.pdf
> , page 26
>
Thank you Greg, that was exactly the answer I was waiting for. Everyone
should take care about the changes made when such surprising numbers are
provided !
Regards
--
Cyril SCETBON