Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Дата
Msg-id CAM3SWZSE2q0LhPb0V5qrUmJ7u048Rp7AoKYVvC4uxLVfddjbqw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Ответы Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> I also wasn't exaggerating the reception I got when I tried to talk
> about IO and PostgreSQL at LinuxCon and other events.  The majority of
> Linux hackers I've talked to simply don't want to be bothered with
> PostgreSQL's performance needs, and I've heard similar things from my
> collegues at the MySQL variants.  Greg KH was the only real exception.

If so, he is a fairly major exception. But there is at least one other
major exception: I met Theodore Ts'o at pgConf.EU (he was in town for
some Google thing), and he seemed pretty interested in what we had to
say, and encouraged us to reach out to the Kernel development
community. I suspect that we simply haven't gone about it the right
way.

> But you know what?  2.6, overall, still performs better than any kernel
> in the 3.X series, at least for Postgres.

What about the fseek() scalability issue?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: KONDO Mitsumasa
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Следующее
От: Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Time-Delayed Standbys