Re: Is there anything special about pg_dump's compression?
От | Jean-David Beyer |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is there anything special about pg_dump's compression? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 473D2408.8060406@verizon.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is there anything special about pg_dump's compression? (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is there anything special about pg_dump's compression?
|
Список | pgsql-sql |
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:05:44AM -0500, Jean-David Beyer wrote: >> Does pg_dump's compression do anything really special that it is not >> likely the tape drive already does? The drive claims 2:1 compression >> for average data (e.g., not already compressed stuff like .jpeg files). >> > > It's zlib, if I recall correctly. So probably not. > I turned the software compression off. It took: 524487428 bytes (524 MB) copied, 125.394 seconds, 4.2 MB/s When I let the software compression run, it uses only 30 MBytes. So whatever compression it uses is very good on this kind of data. 29810260 bytes (30 MB) copied, 123.145 seconds, 242 kB/s Since the whole database like that was probably in RAM, I would not expect much IO time. Also the data transfer light was on a lot of the time instead of short blinks. It did not seem to lighten the CPU load much. The postgres server process got 100% of a cpu and the client took about 12% of another when running uncompressed. I imagined the client did the compression and writing to tape, and the server just picked up the data from the shared_buffers (= 253000 @ 8KB each); i.e., that holds about 2 GBytes. When the client is compressing, the client's cpu takes about 40% of a processor. When it is not compressing, it takes about 12% of a processor. If I am right, it seems to take a lot of time to pick up the database from RAM if it requires 100% of a 3.06GHz Xeon processor. The tape drive (Exabyte VXA-2) has a 12 MB/sec transfer rate, so it should be the limiting factor (but it does not seem to be), but I do not notice a whole lot of IO-Wait time (though there is some). Any idea why the server is compute-limited just reading from the shared buffers and delivering it to the client to write to tape? Is it that I have too many shared buffers and I should reduce it from about 2 GBytes? Does it sequentially search the shared buffers or something? I made it large so I could get at least all the active indices in, and preferably the hot data pages as well. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939./()\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org^^-^^ 23:15:01 up 23 days, 16:33, 2 users, load average: 5.25,5.32, 5.34
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: