Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints test results

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Smith
Тема Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints test results
Дата
Msg-id Pine.GSO.4.64.0706160129370.10398@westnet.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints test results  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints test results  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:

> But what you're concerned about is not OLTP performance at all.

It's an OLTP system most of the time that periodically gets unexpectedly 
high volume.  The TPC-E OLTP test suite actually has a MarketFeed 
component to in it that has similar properties to what I was fighting 
with.  In a real-world Market Feed, you spec the system to survive a very 
high volume day of trades.  But every now and then there's some event that 
causes volumes to spike way outside of any you would ever be able to plan 
for, and much data ends up getting lost as a result from systems not being 
able to keep up.  A look at the 1987 "Black Monday" crash is informative 
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_(1987)

> But the point is you're concerned with total throughput and not response 
> time. You don't have a fixed rate imposed by outside circumstances with 
> which you have to keep up all the time. You just want to be have the 
> highest throughput overall.

Actually, I think I care about reponse time more than you do.  In a 
typical data logging situation, there is some normal rate at which you 
expect transactions to arrive.  There's usually something memory-based 
upsteam that can buffer a small amount of delay, so an occasional short 
checkpoint blip can be tolerated.  But if there's ever a really extended 
one, you actually start losing data when the buffers overflow.

The last project I was working on, any checkpoint that caused a 
transaction to slip for more than 5 seconds would cause a data loss.  One 
of the defenses against that happening is that you have a wicked fast 
transaction rate to clear the buffer out when thing are going well, but by 
no means is that rate the important thing--never having the response time 
halt for so long that transactions get lost is.

> The good news is that this should be pretty easy to test though. The 
> main competitor for DBT2 is BenchmarkSQL whose main deficiency is 
> precisely the lack of support for the think times.

Maybe you can get something useful out of that one.  I found the 
performance impact of the JDBC layer in the middle so lowered overall 
throughput and distanced me from what was happening that it blurred what 
was going on.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Treat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Performance Monitoring
Следующее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints test results