pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marinos Yannikos <mjy@geizhals.at>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:46:05 +0200
Message-ID: <48079AED.8090906@geizhals.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0804161524410.27404@westnet.com>
References: <480619CA.2080904@geizhals.at>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0804161524410.27404@westnet.com>

Greg Smith schrieb:
> You also didn't mention what disk controller you have, or how much write 
> cache it has (if any).

8.3.1, Controller is 
http://www.infortrend.com/main/2_product/es_a08(12)f-g2422.asp with 2GB 
cache (writeback was enabled).

> That's almost turning the background writer off.  If that's what 
> improved your situation, you might as well as turn it off altogether by 
> setting all the bgwriter_lru_maxpages parameters to be 0.  The 
> combination you describe here, running very infrequently but with 
> lru_maxpages set to its maximum, is a bit odd.

Perhaps the background writer takes too long to find the required number 
of dirty pages among the 16GB shared buffers (currently), which should 
be mostly clean. We could reduce the shared buffers to a more commonly 
used amount (<= 2GB or so) but some of our most frequently used tables 
are in the 8+ GB range and sequential scans are much faster with this 
setting (for ~, ~* etc.).

>> Other options we have tried/used were shared_buffers between 200MB and 
>> 20GB, wal_buffers = 256MB, wal_writer_delay=5000ms ...
> 
> The useful range for wal_buffers tops at around 1MB, so no need to get 
> extreme there.  wal_writer_delay shouldn't matter here unless you turned 
> on asyncronous commit.

I was under the impression that wal_buffers should be kept at/above the 
size of tyical transactions. We do have some large-ish ones that are 
time-critical.

-mjy



view thread (12+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <48079AED.8090906@geizhals.at>
Permalink:  ../48079AED.8090906@geizhals.at/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/48079AED.8090906@geizhals.at

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: mjy@geizhals.at
  Subject: Re: Background writer underemphasized ...
  In-Reply-To: <48079AED.8090906@geizhals.at>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

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