From: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Revisiting disk layout on ZFS systems
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:07:22 -0500
Message-ID: <535E98DA.7080702@denninger.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <535E9812.1090605@vmware.com>
References: <535E781A.5030708@denninger.net>
<535E9812.1090605@vmware.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 4/28/2014 1:04 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 06:47 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:
>> What I am curious about, however, is the xlog -- that appears to suffer
>> pretty badly from 128k record size, although it compresses even
>> more-materially; 1.94x (!)
>>
>> The files in the xlog directory are large (16MB each) and thus "first
>> blush" would be that having a larger record size for that storage area
>> would help. It appears that instead it hurts.
>
> The WAL is fsync'd frequently. My guess is that that causes a lot of
> extra work to repeatedly recompress the same data, or something like
> that.
>
> - Heikki
>
It shouldn't as ZFS re-writes on change, and what's showing up is not
high I/O *count* but rather percentage-busy, which implies lots of head
movement (that is, lots of sub-allocation unit writes.)
Isn't WAL essentially sequential writes during normal operation?
--
-- Karl
karl@denninger.net
Attachments:
smime.p7s (application/pkcs7-signature, 2.6K) download
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: karl@denninger.net
Subject: Re: Revisiting disk layout on ZFS systems
In-Reply-To: <535E98DA.7080702@denninger.net>
* 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