Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Data Bases > Pgsql Performance > Re: Background ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 7 of 12 Topic 3995 of 4424
Post > Topic >>

Re: Background writer underemphasized ...

by gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Smith) Apr 19, 2008 at 05:22 AM

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Marinos Yannikos wrote:

> Controller is 
> http://www.infortrend.com/main/2_product/es_a08(12)f-g2422.asp
with 2GB 
> cache (writeback was enabled).

Ah.  Sometimes these fiber channel controllers can get a little weird 
(compared with more direct storage) when the cache gets completely filled.

If you think about it, flu****ng 2GB out takes takes a pretty significant 
period amount of time even at 4Gbps, and once all the caches at every 
level are filled it's possible for that to turn into a bottleneck.

Using the background writer more assures that the cache on the controller 
is going to be written to aggressively, so it may be somewhat filled 
already come checkpoint time.  If you leave the writer off, when the 
checkpoint comes you're much more likely to have the full 2GB available to

absorb a large block of writes.

You suggested a do***entation update; it would be fair to suggest that 
there are caching/storage setups where even the 8.3 BGW might just be 
getting in the way.  The right thing to do there is just turn it off 
altogether, which should work a bit better than the exact tuning you 
suggested.

> Perhaps the background writer takes too long to find the required number
of 
> dirty pages among the 16GB shared buffers (currently), which should be
mostly 
> clean.

That would only cause a minor increase in CPU usage.  You certainly don't 
want to reduce shared_buffers for all the reasons you list.

> I was under the impression that wal_buffers should be kept at/above the
size 
> of tyical transactions.

It doesn't have to be large enough to hold a whole transaction, just big 
enough that when it fills and a write is forced that write isn't trivially

small (and therefore wasteful in terms of I/O size).  There's a fairly 
good discussion of what's actually involved here at 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2003-02/msg00053.php
; as I 
suggested, I've seen and heard others re****t small improvements in raising

from the tiny default value to the small MB range, but beyond that you're 
just wasting RAM that could buffer database pages instead.

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

-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
 




 12 Posts in Topic:
Background writer underemphasized ...
mjy@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-04-16 17:22:50 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
Chris Browne <cbbrowne  2008-04-16 13:47:59 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
wmoran@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-16 14:43:35 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-16 15:55:51 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-16 15:45:22 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
mjy@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-04-17 20:46:05 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-19 05:22:46 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
james@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-19 16:06:05 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-19 15:29:38 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
james@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-20 15:41:13 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
gsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-23 01:11:01 
Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
wmoran@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-16 16:07:24 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Mon Dec 1 7:10:49 CST 2008.