Re: pg_test_fsync performance
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_test_fsync performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20120215151700.GB13011@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_test_fsync performance (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:23:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > >> +1, I was about to suggest the same thing. Running any of these tests > > > >> for a fixed number of iterations will result in drastic degradation of > > > >> accuracy as soon as the machine's behavior changes noticeably from what > > > >> you were expecting. Run them for a fixed time period instead. Or maybe > > > >> do a few, then check elapsed time and estimate a number of iterations to > > > >> use, if you're worried about the cost of doing gettimeofday after each > > > >> write. > > > > > > > Good idea, and it worked out very well. I changed the -o loops > > > > parameter to -s seconds which calls alarm() after (default) 2 seconds, > > > > and then once the operation completes, computes a duration per > > > > operation. > > > > > > I was kind of wondering how portable alarm() is, and the answer > > > according to the buildfarm is that it isn't. > > > > I'm using following simplistic alarm() implementation for win32: > > > > https://github.com/markokr/libusual/blob/master/usual/signal.c#L21 > > > > this works with fake sigaction()/SIGALARM hack below - to remember > > function to call. > > > > Good enough for simple stats printing, and avoids win32-specific > > code spreading around. > > Wow, I wasn't even aware this compiled in Win32; I thought it was > ifdef'ed out. Anyway, I am looking at SetTimer as a way of making this > work. (Me wonders if the GoGrid Windows images have compilers.) > > I see backend/port/win32/timer.c so I might go with a simple "create a > thread, sleep(2), set flag, exit" solution. Yeah, two Windows buildfarm machines have now successfully compiled my patches, so I guess I fixed it; patch attached. The fix was surprisingly easy given the use of threads; scheduling the timeout in the operating system was just too invasive. I would like to eventually know if this fix actually produces the right output. How would I test that? Are the buildfarm output binaries available somewhere? Should I add this as a 9.2 TODO item? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: