On 3/8/17 8:36 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Sharma
To start with, I ran the regression test-suite and didn't find any failures.
But, then I am not sure if huge_pages are getting used or not. However,
upon checking the settings for huge_pages and I found it as 'on'. I am
assuming, if huge pages is not being used due to shortage of large pages,
it should have fallen back to non-huge pages.
You are right, the server falls back to non-huge pages when the large pages run
short.
I also ran the pgbench tests on read-only workload and here are the results
I got.
pgbench -c 4 -j 4 - T 600 bench
huge_pages=on, TPS = 21120.768085
huge_pages=off, TPS = 20606.288995
Thanks. It's about 2% improvement, which is the same as what I got.
From: Thomas Munro [mailto:[email protected]]
The line beginning 'Huge pages are known as...' has been accidentally
duplicated.
Oops, how careless I was. Fixed. As Ashutosh referred, I added a very simple
suggestion to use Windows Group Policy tool.
Amit, Magnus, you are signed up as reviewers for this patch. Do you
know when you'll have a chance to take a look?
Thanks,
--
-David
[email protected]
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
