Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoawGN6Z8PcLKrMrGg99hF0028sFS2a1_VQEMDKcJjQDMQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS][PATCH] Applying PMDK to WAL operations for persistent memory  (Yoshimi Ichiyanagi <ichiyanagi.yoshimi@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:00 AM, Yoshimi Ichiyanagi
<ichiyanagi.yoshimi@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> C-5. Running the 2 benchmarks(1. pgbench, 2. my insert benchmark)
> C-5-1. pgbench
> # numactl -N 1 pgbech -c 32 -j 8 -T 120 -M prepared [DB_NAME]
>
> The averages of running pgbench three times are:
> wal_sync_method=fdatasync:   tps = 43,179
> wal_sync_method=pmem_drain:  tps = 45,254

What scale factor was used for this test?

Was the only non-default configuration setting wal_sync_method?  i.e.
synchronous_commit=on?  No change to max_wal_size?

This seems like an exceedingly short test -- normally, for write
tests, I recommend the median of 3 30-minute runs.  It also seems
likely to be client-bound, because of the fact that jobs = clients/4.
Normally I use jobs = clients or at least jobs = clients/2.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL crashes with SIGSEGV