Re: Do you know the reason for increased max latency due to xlog scaling?
От | MauMau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do you know the reason for increased max latency due to xlog scaling? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | FAE78AEDDE2F45E0863E8ACAB3CF1AAD@maumau обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Do you know the reason for increased max latency due to xlog scaling? (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Jeff Janes" <jeff.janes@gmail.com> > I thought that this was the point I was making, not the point I was > missing. You have the same hard drives you had before, but now due to a > software improvement you are cramming 5 times more stuff through them. > Yeah, you will get bigger latency spikes. Why wouldn't you? You are now > beating the snot out of your hard drives, whereas before you were not. > > If you need 10,000 TPS, then you need to upgrade to 9.4. If you need it > with low maximum latency as well, then you probably need to get better IO > hardware as well (maybe not--maybe more tuning could help). With 9.3 you > didn't need better IO hardware, because you weren't capable of maxing out > what you already had. With 9.4 you can max it out, and this is a good > thing. > > If you need 10,000 TPS but only 2000 TPS are completing under 9.3, then > what is happening to the other 8000 TPS? Whatever is happening to them, it > must be worse than a latency spike. > > On the other hand, if you don't need 10,000 TPS, than measuring max > latency > at 10,000 TPS is the wrong thing to measure. Thank you, I've probably got the point --- you mean the hard disk for WAL is the bottleneck. But I still wonder a bit why the latency spike became so bigger even with # of clients fewer than # of CPU cores. I suppose the requests get processed more smoothly when the number of simultaneous requests is small. Anyway, I want to believe the latency spike would become significantly smaller on an SSD. Regards MauMau
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: