On 20.09.2011 17:31, Cédric Villemain wrote:
2011/9/20 Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com>:
On 20.09.2011 16:49, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Isn't there also the advantage of that work put in two different
processes can use two different CPU cores? Or is that likely to never
ever come in play here?
You would need one helluva I/O system to saturate even a single CPU, just by
doing write+fsync.
The point of Magnus is valid. There are possible throttling done by
linux per node, per process/task.
Since ..2.6.37 (32 ?) I believe .. there are more temptation to have
have per cgroup io/sec limits, and there exists some promising work
done to have a better IO bandwith throttling per process.
IMO, splitting the type of IO workload per process allows the
administrators to have more control on the IO limits they want to have
(and it may help the kernels() to have a better strategy ?)
That is a separate issue from being able to use different CPU cores. But
cool! I didn't know Linux can do that nowadays. That could be highly
useful, if you can put e.g autovacuum on a different cgroup from regular
backends.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
