Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 51D10AF8.2010707@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) (Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)
(Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql@jamponi.net>)
Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/30/13 9:28 PM, Jon Nelson wrote: > The performance of the latter (new) test sometimes seems to perform > worse and sometimes seems to perform better (usually worse) than > either of the other two. In all cases, posix_fallocate performs > better, but I don't have a sufficiently old kernel to test with. This updated test program looks reliable now. The numbers are very tight when I'd expect them to be, and there's nowhere with the huge differences I saw in the earlier test program. Here's results from a few sets of popular older platforms: RHEL5, ext3 method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 22.6949s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 23.0113s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 22.4921s method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 23.2808s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 22.4736s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 23.9871s method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 22.4812s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 22.2393s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 23.6940s RHEL6, ext4 method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 56.0483s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 61.5092s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 53.8569s method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 57.0361s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 55.9840s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 64.9437sb RHEL6, ext3 method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 14.4080s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 16.1395s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 16.9657s method: classic. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 15.2825s method: posix_fallocate. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 16.5315s method: glibc emulation. 10 open/close iterations, 10 rewrite in 14.8115s The win for posix_fallocate is there in most cases, but it's pretty hard to see in these older systems. That could be OK. As long as the difference is no more than noise, and that is the case, this could be good enough to commit. If there are significantly better results on the new platforms, the old ones need to just not get worse. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: