(2013/12/04 11:28), Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
Would certainly be nice. Realistically, getting good automated
performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me
for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile open source
performance test platforms currently don't exist. That money has never
been available; maybe I should do a kickstarter.
So in order to get *testing* we need to pay somebody. But to build a great
database server, we can rely on volunteer efforts or sponsorship from
companies who are interested in moving the project forward?
And even more to the point, volunteers to reinvent the kernel I/O stack
can be found on every street corner? And those volunteers won't need any
test scaffolding to be sure that *their* version never has performance
regressions? (Well, no, they won't, because no such thing will ever be
built. But we do need better test scaffolding for real problems.)
Can we avoid the Linux kernel problem by simply increasing our shared
buffer size, say up to 80% of memory?
It will be swap more easier.
I think that we should use latest system-calls in Linux which are like
posix_fadvise(), fallocate() and sync_file_range() etc, when we use linux
buffered IO. Hoevere, PostgreSQL doesn't use these system-call a lots.
Especially, I think that checkpoint algorithm is very ugly..
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
