Re: Background LRU Writer/free list
От | Gregory Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Background LRU Writer/free list |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87hcrdpmfg.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Background LRU Writer/free list (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Background LRU Writer/free list
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > Why? What you're really trying to determine, I think, is the I/O load > imposed by the bgwriter, and pages-per-second seems a pretty natural > way to think about that; percentage of shared buffers not so much. What I'm saying is that pages/s will vary from system to system. Busier systems will have higher i/o rates. So a system with a DBA on a system with a higher rate will want to adjust the bgwriter sleep time lower than the DBA on a system where bgwriter isn't doing much work. In particular I'm worried about what happens on a very busy cpu-bound system where adjusting the sleep times would result in it deciding to not sleep at all. On such a system sleeping for even 10ms might be too long. But we probably don't want to make the default even as low as 10ms. Anyways, if we have a working patch that works the other way around we could experiment with that and see if there are actual situations where sleeping for 0ms is necessary. Perhaps a mixture of the two approaches will be necessary anyways because of the granularity issue. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: