Re: refactoring basebackup.c
| От | Suraj Kharage |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: refactoring basebackup.c |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAF1DzPU4w43cfeWnB01ChR8VCqLnADoV5Wkiunhhjr1XDifutA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: refactoring basebackup.c (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: refactoring basebackup.c
Re: refactoring basebackup.c |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Did some performance testing by varying TAR_SEND_SIZE with Robert's refactor patch and without the patch to check the impact.
Below are the details:
Backup type: local backup using pg_basebackup
Data size: Around 200GB (200 tables - each table around 1.05 GB)
different TAR_SEND_SIZE values: 8kb, 32kb (default value), 128kB, 1MB (1024kB)
Server details:
RAM: 500 GB CPU details: Architecture: x86_64 CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 128 Filesystem: ext4
| 8kb | 32kb (default value) | 128kB | 1024kB | |
| Without refactor patch | real 10m22.718s user 1m23.629s sys 8m51.410s | real 8m36.245s user 1m8.471s sys 7m21.520s | real 6m54.299s user 0m55.690s sys 5m46.502s | real 18m3.511s user 1m38.197s sys 9m36.517s |
| With refactor patch (Robert's patch) | real 10m11.350s user 1m25.038s sys 8m39.226s | real 8m56.226s user 1m9.774s sys 7m41.032s | real 7m26.678s user 0m54.833s sys 6m20.057s | real 18m17.230s user 1m42.749s sys 9m53.704s |
The above numbers are taken from the minimum of two runs of each scenario.
I can see, when we have TAR_SEND_SIZE as 32kb or 128kb, it is giving us a good performance whereas, for 1Mb it is taking 2.5x more time.
Please let me know your thoughts/suggestions on the same.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Suraj kharage,
EnterpriseDB Corporation,
The Postgres Database Company.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: