Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CE99FB1D8 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:23:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66910-05 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:22:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from cse.ohio-state.edu (mail.cse.ohio-state.edu [164.107.123.5]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47E79FB327 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:22:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [164.107.116.241] (jason.cse.ohio-state.edu [164.107.116.241]) (authenticated bits=0) by cse.ohio-state.edu (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l35IMueJ010610; Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46153E7D.7030208@cse.ohio-state.edu> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:22:53 -0400 From: Xiaoning Ding User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070301) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Jones CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: a question about Direct I/O and double buffering References: <46152D5D.5030602@cse.ohio-state.edu> <4C4C834E-9304-4E23-AD15-1756921500B5@myemma.com> In-Reply-To: <4C4C834E-9304-4E23-AD15-1756921500B5@myemma.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200704/114 X-Sequence-Number: 23991 Erik Jones wrote: > On Apr 5, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Xiaoning Ding wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> A page may be double buffered in PG's buffer pool and in OS's buffer >> cache. >> Other DBMS like DB2 and Oracle has provided Direct I/O option to eliminate >> double buffering. I noticed there were discusses on the list. But >> I can not find similar option in PG. Does PG support direct I/O now? >> >> The tuning guide of PG usually recommends a small shared buffer pool >> (compared >> to the size of physical memory). I think it is to avoid swapping. If >> there were >> swapping, OS kernel may swap out some pages in PG's buffer pool even PG >> want to keep them in memory. i.e. PG would loose full control over >> buffer pool. >> A large buffer pool is not good because it may >> 1. cause more pages double buffered, and thus decrease the efficiency of >> buffer >> cache and buffer pool. >> 2. may cause swapping. >> Am I right? >> >> If PG's buffer pool is small compared with physical memory, can I say >> that the >> hit ratio of PG's buffer pool is not so meaningful because most misses >> can be >> satisfied by OS Kernel's buffer cache? >> >> Thanks! > > To the best of my knowledge, Postgres itself does not have a direct IO > option (although it would be a good addition). So, in order to use > direct IO with postgres you'll need to consult your filesystem docs for > how to set the forcedirectio mount option. I believe it can be set > dynamically, but if you want it to be permanent you'll to add it to your > fstab/vfstab file. I use Linux. It supports direct I/O on a per-file basis only. To bypass OS buffer cache, files should be opened with O_DIRECT option. I afraid that I have to modify PG. Xiaoning > > erik jones > > software developer > 615-296-0838 > emma(r) > > >