From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at>
Subject: Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:49:20 -0800
Message-ID: <4B704EA0.3050906@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B702E05.1000708@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <4B6FDD26.9010106@2ndquadrant.com>
<D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C203938157@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at>
<4B6FD868020000250002F084@gw.wicourts.gov>
<4B702E05.1000708@2ndquadrant.com>
> That's basically what I've been trying to make clear all along: people
> should keep an open mind, watch what happens, and not make any
> assumptions. There's no clear cut preference for one scheduler or the
> other in all situations. I've seen CFQ do much better, you and Albe
> report situations where the opposite is true. I was just happy to see
> another report of someone running into the same sort of issue I've been
> seeing, because I didn't have very much data to offer about why the
> standard advice of "always use deadline for a database app" might not
> apply to everyone.
Damn, you would have to make things complicated, eh?
FWIW, back when deadline was first introduced Mark Wong did some tests
and found Deadline to be the fastest of 4 on DBT2 ... but only by about
5%. If the read vs. checkpoint analysis is correct, what was happening
is the penalty for checkpoints on deadline was almost wiping out the
advantage for reads, but not quite.
Those tests were also done on attached storage.
So, what this suggests is:
reads: deadline > CFQ
writes: CFQ > deadline
attached storage: deadline > CFQ
Man, we'd need a lot of testing to settle this. I guess that's why
Linux gives us the choice of 4 ...
--Josh Berkus
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: josh@agliodbs.com, greg@2ndquadrant.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at
Subject: Re: Linux I/O tuning: CFQ vs. deadline
In-Reply-To: <4B704EA0.3050906@agliodbs.com>
* 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