DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=FD5DyAzts3WTSLB0OUAx9p/LwuxSIPGTbfWxoVu4fhrPxVmqeCdRpqWl1wchDOKR3EJTmrLNiml6jF7BV24mbuRGPbmUesL7kk7qgzbHzcjc2+y54zFjTYw/rN4H2MS1QYtmWUDevZV1oJx/1d2ibtioIRFP+Tm42YVTX0/cwXY=
Message-ID: <5482c80a0704030951l342a28aw3e1ccc19196c2cae@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:51:56 +0200
From: Dimitri <dimitrik.fr@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Shared buffers, db transactions commited, and write IO on Solaris
In-Reply-To: <5482c80a0703300858n64721e90y7295e9a25bcd1c5b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <9B7F4B34-7E96-4501-BCE0-D0BED739530A@myemma.com>
	<5482c80a0703291041gbf95cd9v95e17e271293ae8e@mail.gmail.com>
	<606E8491-AAFB-493E-8FFA-FF26D6DD5ACE@myemma.com>
	<5482c80a0703291515i7c05ba28l6f7240ebb5d2b837@mail.gmail.com>
	<84D24979-AF34-4875-9AFB-DD4A7814B99A@myemma.com>
	<5482c80a0703300614x1fe7d9ccy2d414ed87f98db3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<F007D213-08DB-4B1D-A9BD-4925CAD11334@myemma.com>
	<5482c80a0703300725o31562938x6e8e67bfa7f32fa7@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070330150506.GF11581@it.is.rice.edu>
	<5482c80a0703300858n64721e90y7295e9a25bcd1c5b@mail.gmail.com>

Folks,

to close topic with "LOG block size=1K" idea - I took a time to test
it (yes) and in best cases there is only 15% gain comparing to 8K -
storage protocol is quite heavy itself, so less or more data sent
within it doesn't reduce service time too much... As well even this
gain is quickly decreasing with growing workload! So, yes 8K is good
enough and probably the most optimal choice for LOG (as well data)
block size.

Rgds,
-Dimitri


> Well, to check if there is a real potential gain all we need is a
> small comparing test using PgSQL compiled with LOG block size equal to
> say 1K and direct IO enabled.
>
> Rgds,
> -Dimitri
>
>
> On 3/30/07, Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 04:25:16PM +0200, Dimitri wrote:
> > > The problem is while your goal is to commit as fast as possible - it's
> > > pity to vast I/O operation speed just keeping common block size...
> > > Let's say if your transaction modification entering into 512K - you'll
> > > be able to write much more 512K blocks per second rather 8K per second
> > > (for the same amount of data)... Even we rewrite probably several
> > > times the same block with incoming transactions - it still costs on
> > > traffic, and we will process slower even H/W can do better. Don't
> > > think it's good, no? ;)
> > >
> > > Rgds,
> > > -Dimitri
> > >
> > With block sizes you are always trading off overhead versus space
> > efficiency. Most OS write only in 4k/8k to the underlying hardware
> > regardless of the size of the write you issue. Issuing 16 512byte
> > writes has much more overhead than 1 8k write. On the light transaction
> > end, there is no real benefit to a small write and it will slow
> > performance for high throughput environments. It would be better to,
> > and I think that someone is looking into, batching I/O.
> >
> > Ken
> >
>