On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 10:44:15 -0800
Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> It seems clear that Kernel.org, since 2.6, has been in the business of
> pushing major, hackish, changes to the IO stack without testing them or
> even thinking too hard about what the side-effects might be. This is
> perhaps unsurprising given that two of the largest sponsors of the
> Kernel -- who, incidentally, do 100% of the performance testing -- don't
> use the IO stack.
>
> This says to me that Linux will clearly be an undependable platform in
> the future with the potential to destroy PostgreSQL performance without
> warning, leaving us scrambling for workarounds. Too bad the
> alternatives are so unpopular.
Wow, Josh, I'm surprised to hear this from you.
The active/inactive list mechanism works great for the vast majority of
users. The second-use algorithm prevents a lot of pathological behavior,
like wiping out your entire cache by copying a big file or running a
backup. We *need* that kind of logic in the kernel.
Now, back in 2012, Johannes (working for one of those big contributors)
hit upon an issue where second-use falls down. So he set out to fix it:
https://lwn.net/Articles/495543/
This code has been a bit slow getting into the mainline for a few reasons,
but one of the chief ones is this: nobody is saying from the sidelines
that they need it! If somebody were saying "Postgres would work a lot
better with this code in place" and had some numbers to demonstrate that,
we'd be far more likely to see it get into an upcoming release.
In the end, Linux is quite responsive to the people who participate in its
development, even as testers and bug reporters. It responds rather less
well to people who find problems in enterprise kernels years later,
granted.
The amount of automated testing, including performance testing, has
increased markedly in the last couple of years. I bet that it would not
be hard at all to get somebody like Fengguang Wu to add some
Postgres-oriented I/O tests to his automatic suite:
https://lwn.net/Articles/571991/
Then we would all have a much better idea of how kernel releases are
affecting one of our most important applications; developers would pay
attention to that information.
Or you could go off and do your own thing, but I believe that would leave
us all poorer.
Thanks,
jon
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
