Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.64.0706251711430.2936@westnet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Greg, is this the kind of workload you're having, or is there some other > scenario you're worried about? The way transitions between completely idle and all-out bursts happen were one problematic area I struggled with. Since the LRU point doesn't move during the idle parts, and the lingering buffers have a usage_count>0, the LRU scan won't touch them; the only way to clear out a bunch of dirty buffers leftover from the last burst is with the all-scan. Ideally, you want those to write during idle periods so you're completely clean when the next burst comes. My plan for the code I wanted to put into 8.4 one day was to have something like the current all-scan that defers to the LRU and checkpoint, such that if neither of them are doing anything it would go searching for buffers it might blow out. Because the all-scan mainly gets in the way under heavy load right now I've only found mild settings helpful, but if it had a bit more information about what else was going on it could run much harder during slow spots. That's sort of the next stage to the auto-tuning LRU writer code in the grand design floating through my head. As a general comment on this subject, a lot of the work in LDC presumes you have an accurate notion of how close the next checkpoint is. On systems that can dirty buffers and write WAL really fast, I've found hyper bursty workloads are a challenge for it to cope with. You can go from thinking you have all sorts of time to stream the data out to discovering the next checkpoint is coming up fast in only seconds. In that situation, you'd have been better off had you been writing faster during the period preceeding the burst when the code thought it should be "smooth"[1]. That falls into the category of things I haven't found a good way for other people to test (I happened to have an internal bursty app that aggrevated this area to use). [1] This is actually a reference to "Yacht Rock", one of my favorite web sites: http://www.channel101.com/shows/show.php?show_id=152 -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: