<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br /><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Jim Nasby <span
dir="ltr"><<ahref="mailto:Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com" target="_blank">Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br/><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Well,
16MBis 2K pages, which is what you'd get if 100 connections were all blocked and we're doing 20 pages per waiter. That
seemslike a really extreme scenario, so maybe 4MB is a good compromise. That's unlikely to be hit in most cases,
unlikelyto put a ton of stress on IO, even with magnetic media (assuming the whole 4MB is queued to write in one
shot...).4MB would still reduce the number of locks by 500x.</blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">In
myperformance results given up thread, we are getting max performance at 32 clients, means at a time we are extending
32*20~= max (600) pages at a time. So now with 4MB limit (max 512 pages) Results will looks similar. So we need to take
adecision whether 4MB is good limit, should I change it ?<br /><br /><br />-- <br /><div class="gmail_signature"><div
dir="ltr"><spanstyle="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Regards,</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Dilip Kumar</span><br
style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"/><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">EnterpriseDB: </span><a
href="http://www.enterprisedb.com/"style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-size:12.8px"
target="_blank">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br/></div></div></div></div>