Hi,
On 2014-08-25 22:23:40 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> seconds followed by 16 seconds at about 0 tps for the checkpoint induced IO
> storm. The server is totally unresponsive 75% of the time. That's bandwidth
> optimization for you. Hmmm... why not.
>
> Now, given this setup, if pgbench is throttled at 50 tps (1/6 the above
> max):
>
> pgbench -M prepared -N -c 2 -R 50.0 -T 500 -P 1 ...
>
> The same thing more or less happens in a delayed fashion... You get 50 tps
> for some time, followed by sections of 15 seconds at 0 tps for the
> checkpoint when the segments are full... the server is unresponsive about
> 10% of the time (one in ten transaction is late by more than 200 ms).
That's ext4 I guess? Did you check whether xfs yields a, err, more
predictable performance?
> It is not satisfying, pg should be able to handle that load easily.
>
> The culprit I found is "bgwriter", which is basically doing nothing to
> prevent the coming checkpoint IO storm, even though there would be ample
> time to write the accumulating dirty pages so that checkpoint would find a
> clean field and pass in a blink.
While I agree that the current bgwriter implementation is far from good,
note that this isn't the bgwriter's job. Its goal is to avoid backends
from having to write out buffers themselves. I.e. that there are clean
victim buffers when shared_buffers < working set.
Note that it would *not* be a good idea to make the bgwriter write out
everything, as much as possible - that'd turn sequential write io into
random write io.
Greetings,
Andres Freund