Message-ID: <461562F5.8070600@cse.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:58:29 -0400
From: Xiaoning Ding <dingxn@cse.ohio-state.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070301)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>
CC: Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>, 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>	
	<46153E7D.7030208@cse.ohio-state.edu>	
	<0F61A03E-DF77-46C2-B7E1-2E7A5F985FB8@myemma.com>
	<a728f9f90704051156k4e5c3889s84a213c55b811830@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a728f9f90704051156k4e5c3889s84a213c55b811830@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alex Deucher wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 5, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Xiaoning Ding wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> Looks like it.  I just did a cursory search of the archives and it seems
>> that others have looked at this before so you'll probably want to start
>> there if your up to it.
>>
> 
> Linux used to have (still does?) a RAW interface which might also be
> useful.  I think the original code was contributed by oracle so they
> could support direct IO.
> 
> Alex
I am more concerned with reads , and how to do direct I/O under Linux here.
Reading raw devices in linux bypasses OS buffer cache. But how can you
mount a raw device( it is a character device) as a file system?

  Xiaoning