Re: test_fsync label adjustments
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: test_fsync label adjustments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201101182216.p0IMG3229017@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: test_fsync label adjustments ("A.M." <agentm@themactionfaction.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: test_fsync label adjustments
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
A.M. wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I have modified test_fsync to use test labels that match wal_sync_method > > values, and and added more tests for open_sync with different sizes. > > This should make the program easier for novices to understand. Here is > > a test run for Ubuntu 11.04: > > > > $ ./test_fsync > > 2000 operations per test > > > > Compare file sync methods using one 8k write: > > (in wal_sync_method preference order, except fdatasync > > is Linux's default) > > open_datasync (non-direct I/O)* 85.127 ops/sec > > open_datasync (direct I/O) 87.119 ops/sec > > fdatasync 81.006 ops/sec > > fsync 82.621 ops/sec > > fsync_writethrough n/a > > open_sync (non-direct I/O)* 84.412 ops/sec > > open_sync (direct I/O) 91.006 ops/sec > > * This non-direct I/O mode is not used by Postgres. > > I am curious how this is targeted at novices. A naive user might enable > the "fastest" option which could be exactly wrong. For this to be useful > to novices, I suspect the tool will need to generate platform-specific > suggestions, no? Uh, why isn't the fastest option right for them? It is hardware/kernel specific when you run it --- how could it be better? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: