pg.ddx.io pgsql-admin@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedIO scheduler recommendation
12+ messages / 8 participants
[nested] [flat]
* IO scheduler recommendation
@ 2019-01-21 11:04 AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 09:42 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 12:35 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
2019-01-28 13:15 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Imre Samu <pella.samu@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 4 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: AB_ba# @ 2019-01-21 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Hello ,
I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get anything
with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
--
Thanks and Regards
ANUP BHARTI
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-21 15:44 ` Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 05:38 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Laurenz Albe @ 2019-01-21 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>; pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
AB_ba# wrote:
> I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
There is no clear recommendation.
I personally have seen workloads where changing from "cfq" to "deadline"
or "noop" improved performance by a factor of 4, but on many systems "cfq"
seems to be doing at least as good as the others.
I believe that it depends a lot on your hardware configuration and
your workload, and you are best advised to run a realistic load test.
> Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
No idea - probably depends on what is behind the NFS.
Make sure to use hard, fg mounts.
If you can, use "jumbo frames" so that an 8KB block can fit into
a single IP frame.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
@ 2019-01-22 05:38 ` AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 06:13 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: AB_ba# @ 2019-01-22 05:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; +Cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Thanks Laurenz
Surprise to know that there are no official recommendation from PostgreSQL.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:14 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
wrote:
> AB_ba# wrote:
> > I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get anything
> with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> > What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
>
> There is no clear recommendation.
>
> I personally have seen workloads where changing from "cfq" to "deadline"
> or "noop" improved performance by a factor of 4, but on many systems "cfq"
> seems to be doing at least as good as the others.
>
> I believe that it depends a lot on your hardware configuration and
> your workload, and you are best advised to run a realistic load test.
>
> > Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>
> No idea - probably depends on what is behind the NFS.
>
> Make sure to use hard, fg mounts.
> If you can, use "jumbo frames" so that an 8KB block can fit into
> a single IP frame.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
> --
> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>
>
--
Thanks and Regards
ANUP BHARTI
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 05:38 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-22 06:13 ` Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 07:12 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Tim Cross @ 2019-01-22 06:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>; +Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>; pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
I suspect the main reason there are no official recommendations is because
setting the IO scheduler is a low level optimisation, getting very close
to a 'mciro-optimisation' compared to other areas of optimisation. Some
even consider playing at this level to be somewhat of a black art -
primarily because it is very complicated and dependent on many, many
variables (hardware, use profile, data profile etc). For these reasons, I
doubt there is a clear 'winner' for PG (especially as PG doesn't do direct
IO to disk like Oracle does). I suspect the fact your using NFS will
overshadow any differences with the IO scheduling algorithm as well.
Regardless, the only reliable way to select the best algorithm would be
extensive benchmarking using realistic data and usage profiles.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 16:38, AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Laurenz
> Surprise to know that there are no official recommendation from PostgreSQL.
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:14 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
> wrote:
>
>> AB_ba# wrote:
>> > I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get
>> anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
>> > What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
>>
>> There is no clear recommendation.
>>
>> I personally have seen workloads where changing from "cfq" to "deadline"
>> or "noop" improved performance by a factor of 4, but on many systems "cfq"
>> seems to be doing at least as good as the others.
>>
>> I believe that it depends a lot on your hardware configuration and
>> your workload, and you are best advised to run a realistic load test.
>>
>> > Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>>
>> No idea - probably depends on what is behind the NFS.
>>
>> Make sure to use hard, fg mounts.
>> If you can, use "jumbo frames" so that an 8KB block can fit into
>> a single IP frame.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Laurenz Albe
>> --
>> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>>
>>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> ANUP BHARTI
>
--
regards,
Tim
--
Tim Cross
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 05:38 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 06:13 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-22 07:12 ` Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 08:40 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 09:21 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ron @ 2019-01-22 07:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Isn't the use of NFS pretty high on the "things not to do with Postgres" list?
On 1/22/19 12:13 AM, Tim Cross wrote:
> I suspect the main reason there are no official recommendations is because
> setting the IO scheduler is a low level optimisation, getting very close
> to a 'mciro-optimisation' compared to other areas of optimisation. Some
> even consider playing at this level to be somewhat of a black art -
> primarily because it is very complicated and dependent on many, many
> variables (hardware, use profile, data profile etc). For these reasons, I
> doubt there is a clear 'winner' for PG (especially as PG doesn't do direct
> IO to disk like Oracle does). I suspect the fact your using NFS will
> overshadow any differences with the IO scheduling algorithm as well.
> Regardless, the only reliable way to select the best algorithm would be
> extensive benchmarking using realistic data and usage profiles.
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 16:38, AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com
> <mailto:bharti.anup@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Laurenz
> Surprise to know that there are no official recommendation from
> PostgreSQL.
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:14 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at
> <mailto:laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>> wrote:
>
> AB_ba# wrote:
> > I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get
> anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> > What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
>
> There is no clear recommendation.
>
> I personally have seen workloads where changing from "cfq" to
> "deadline"
> or "noop" improved performance by a factor of 4, but on many
> systems "cfq"
> seems to be doing at least as good as the others.
>
> I believe that it depends a lot on your hardware configuration and
> your workload, and you are best advised to run a realistic load test.
>
> > Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on
> NFS?
>
> No idea - probably depends on what is behind the NFS.
>
> Make sure to use hard, fg mounts.
> If you can, use "jumbo frames" so that an 8KB block can fit into
> a single IP frame.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
> --
> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> ANUP BHARTI
>
>
>
> --
> regards,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Cross
>
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 05:38 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 06:13 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 07:12 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-22 08:40 ` AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: AB_ba# @ 2019-01-22 08:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
It all depends on your experience, There are number of deployments that
are working great with NFS.
Also,IO scheduler settings applies to block devices not to NFS.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:42 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't the use of NFS pretty high on the "things not to do with Postgres"
> list?
>
> On 1/22/19 12:13 AM, Tim Cross wrote:
>
> I suspect the main reason there are no official recommendations is because
> setting the IO scheduler is a low level optimisation, getting very close
> to a 'mciro-optimisation' compared to other areas of optimisation. Some
> even consider playing at this level to be somewhat of a black art -
> primarily because it is very complicated and dependent on many, many
> variables (hardware, use profile, data profile etc). For these reasons, I
> doubt there is a clear 'winner' for PG (especially as PG doesn't do direct
> IO to disk like Oracle does). I suspect the fact your using NFS will
> overshadow any differences with the IO scheduling algorithm as well.
> Regardless, the only reliable way to select the best algorithm would be
> extensive benchmarking using realistic data and usage profiles.
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 16:38, AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Laurenz
>> Surprise to know that there are no official recommendation from
>> PostgreSQL.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:14 PM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> AB_ba# wrote:
>>> > I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get
>>> anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
>>> > What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
>>>
>>> There is no clear recommendation.
>>>
>>> I personally have seen workloads where changing from "cfq" to "deadline"
>>> or "noop" improved performance by a factor of 4, but on many systems
>>> "cfq"
>>> seems to be doing at least as good as the others.
>>>
>>> I believe that it depends a lot on your hardware configuration and
>>> your workload, and you are best advised to run a realistic load test.
>>>
>>> > Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>>>
>>> No idea - probably depends on what is behind the NFS.
>>>
>>> Make sure to use hard, fg mounts.
>>> If you can, use "jumbo frames" so that an 8KB block can fit into
>>> a single IP frame.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Laurenz Albe
>>> --
>>> Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks and Regards
>> ANUP BHARTI
>>
>
>
> --
> regards,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Tim Cross
>
>
> --
> Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
>
--
Thanks and Regards
ANUP BHARTI
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 05:38 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 06:13 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 07:12 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-22 09:21 ` Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Laurenz Albe @ 2019-01-22 09:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>; pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Ron wrote:
> Isn't the use of NFS pretty high on the "things not to do with Postgres" list?
There is a strong sentiment against PostgreSQL on NFS, voiced by people
I tend to trust, but the only detailed horror story I have heard is about
a "bg" mounted NFS file system that wasn't mounted yet when PostgreSQL
was started, and the startup script decided to run "initdb", during which
the mount finally succeeded.
If you browse the archives you will read that "NFS is unreliable" and
"it depends on the implementation, but Linux' implementation is bad"
and such, but without any technical detail ever being mentioned.
That may not be the fault of the people who propagate these opinions -
perhaps they experienced database corruption using NFS, but don't know
exactly which part of NFS caused the problem exactly how.
There are some other voices that say that it works just fine, if you
configure it properly.
The feeling I get from all this is that it is an experimental field,
and everybody who wants to use it would be well advised to run tests
covering all kinds of crash scenarios under load.
I'd still be curious to know if there is someone who can supply
technical details about what *exactly* is wrong with NFS.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
--
Cybertec | https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-22 09:42 ` Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa@gmail.com>
3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Andrzej Zawadzki @ 2019-01-22 09:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>; pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21.01.2019 12:04, AB_ba# wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHMim6rF6jxUp1ueJP593SwM4so7jsZC0vZaXOX2yD_z4XF9xQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hello ,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't
get anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>On bare metal I'm using 'deadline'.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHMim6rF6jxUp1ueJP593SwM4so7jsZC0vZaXOX2yD_z4XF9xQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?</div>
<div>Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is
hosted on NFS?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>NFS? Better use iSCSI.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>-- <br>
</p>
<p>Andrzej<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-28 12:35 ` Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
2019-01-29 07:37 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Purav Chovatia <puravc@gmail.com>
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arni Kromić @ 2019-01-28 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
On 21/01/2019 12.04, AB_ba# wrote:
> Hello ,
>
> I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get
> anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
> Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> ANUP BHARTI
AFAIK, IO scheduler cannot be set for NFS; it's not a real block storage
device.
--
Kind Regards,
Arni Kromić
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 12:35 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
@ 2019-01-29 07:37 ` Purav Chovatia <puravc@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Purav Chovatia @ 2019-01-29 07:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>; +Cc: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Hi,
IO scheduler is more of an OS thing and not a DB thing. Once the DB (be it
Postgresql or any other) has submitted IO to OS it is up to the OS to make
sure it is written in the fastest possible manner.
In RHEL 6, CFQ was the default and starting RHEL 7, Deadline is the default
(I don’t know exactly why was the default changed). However, across rhel 6
& 7 it is suggested to have deadline for db environments. But what I
separately read is that if the server is a VM, then NOOP is the best
scheduler because you don’t want the VM as well as the host, both to be
scheduling IO which can actually work against. In that case, let the VM not
do anything, instead let the host do the scheduling.
HTH
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 6:05 PM, Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr> wrote:
> On 21/01/2019 12.04, AB_ba# wrote:
>
> Hello ,
>
> I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get anything
> with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
> Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> ANUP BHARTI
>
>
> AFAIK, IO scheduler cannot be set for NFS; it's not a real block storage
> device.
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Arni Kromić
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-28 13:15 ` Imre Samu <pella.samu@gmail.com>
2019-01-29 08:05 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Imre Samu @ 2019-01-28 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Phoronix website has some performance testing.
for example: (2018 Dec) "Linux 4.20 I/O Scheduler Benchmarks On NVMe SSD
Storage"
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-420-io&num=3
"BFQ also picked up wins on the Samsung 970 EVO SSD when running the
PostgreSQL database server."
(2017)"Linux 4.12 I/O Scheduler Benchmarks: BFQ, Kyber, Etc"
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-412-io&num=3
"The default CFQ I/O scheduler on this SATA 3.0 SSD system remained the
fastest for this PostgreSQL benchmark."
Imre
AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2019. jan. 21., H, 12:05):
> Hello ,
>
> I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get anything
> with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
> Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> ANUP BHARTI
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: IO scheduler recommendation
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 13:15 ` Re: IO scheduler recommendation Imre Samu <pella.samu@gmail.com>
@ 2019-01-29 08:05 ` Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Arni Kromić @ 2019-01-29 08:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
On 28/01/2019 14.15, Imre Samu wrote:
> Phoronix website has some performance testing.
>
> for example: (2018 Dec) "Linux 4.20 I/O Scheduler Benchmarks On NVMe
> SSD Storage"
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-420-io&num=3
> "BFQ also picked up wins on the Samsung 970 EVO SSD when running the
> PostgreSQL database server."
>
> (2017)"Linux 4.12 I/O Scheduler Benchmarks: BFQ, Kyber, Etc"
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-412-io&num=3
> "The default CFQ I/O scheduler on this SATA 3.0 SSD system remained
> the fastest for this PostgreSQL benchmark."
>
> Imre
>
>
> AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com <mailto:bharti.anup@gmail.com>> ezt írta
> (időpont: 2019. jan. 21., H, 12:05):
>
> Hello ,
>
> I searched the complete PostgreSQL Documentation but didn't get
> anything with respect to IO scheduler recommendation.
> What is being recommended by PostgreSQL ?
> Which is the best IO scheduler considering the Data is hosted on NFS?
>
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> ANUP BHARTI
>
CFQ is supposed to be the best for servers anyway, because it is
designed to ensure all services get fair (hence the name) amount of I/O
transfer time, no matter what. Deadline is supposed to be better for
interactive (e.g. desktop) use because it guarantees better response at
the expense of overall throughput.
The above mentioned schedulers are variants of the Elevator algorithm
designed to optimize data handling on a rotating platter HDD with moving
heads. NOOP scheduler, as its name sugests, does nothing. It is supposed
to be best for devices which are NOT rotating platter, moving heads
HDDs. Its case uses are SSDs which don't have mechanical movements to
optimize, RAID controllers which themselves control their physical
drives and VMs where the host OS is responsible for that.
However all that is moot for NFS, which is used by the OP, for it is a
network protocol, not a physical device. The question of schedulers is
irrelevant because it CAN'T be set for NFS.
--
Kind Regards,
Arni Kromić
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-01-29 08:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-01-21 11:04 IO scheduler recommendation AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-21 15:44 ` Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 05:38 ` AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 06:13 ` Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 07:12 ` Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 08:40 ` AB_ba# <bharti.anup@gmail.com>
2019-01-22 09:21 ` Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
2019-01-22 09:42 ` Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 12:35 ` Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
2019-01-29 07:37 ` Purav Chovatia <puravc@gmail.com>
2019-01-28 13:15 ` Imre Samu <pella.samu@gmail.com>
2019-01-29 08:05 ` Arni Kromić <arni.kromic@bios-ict.hr>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox