On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 16:46 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:55 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> Could you turn full_page_writes = off and do a few more tests? I think
> >>> the full page writes is swamping the xlog and masking the perfo
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:55 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Could you turn full_page_writes = off and do a few more tests? I think
the full page writes is swamping the xlog and masking the performance we
might see for normal small xlog writes.
I'd try XLOG_BLCKSZ =
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 09:55 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > Could you turn full_page_writes = off and do a few more tests? I think
> > the full page writes is swamping the xlog and masking the performance we
> > might see for normal small xlog writes.
> > I'd try XLOG_BLCKSZ = 4096
Simon Riggs wrote:
> Could you turn full_page_writes = off and do a few more tests? I think
> the full page writes is swamping the xlog and masking the performance we
> might see for normal small xlog writes.
> I'd try XLOG_BLCKSZ = 4096 and 8192 to start with. Thanks.
Ok, got data for XLOG_BLCKXZ
On Mon, 08 May 2006 19:08:59 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:00 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 May 2006 10:52:38 +0100
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:14 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > > > I would have gott
On Fri, 2006-05-05 at 16:00 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 10:52:38 +0100
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:14 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > > I would have gotten this out sooner but I'm having trouble with our
> > > infrastructure. Here's a link
On Tue, 02 May 2006 10:52:38 +0100
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:14 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > I would have gotten this out sooner but I'm having trouble with our
> > infrastructure. Here's a link to a table of data I've started putting
> > together regarding
> > > I'm planning on continuing to increase XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers
to
> > > determine when the throughput starts to level out or drop
> >
> > I think for an even better comparison you should scale wal_buffers
> > down with increasing XLOG_BLCKSZ, so that the xlog buffer has a
fixed
> > siz
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 05:00:58PM +0200, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD wrote:
>
> > I'm planning on continuing to increase XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers to
> > determine when the throughput starts to level out or drop
>
> I think for an even better comparison you should scale wal_buffers
> down with
> I'm planning on continuing to increase XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers to
> determine when the throughput starts to level out or drop
I think for an even better comparison you should scale wal_buffers
down with increasing XLOG_BLCKSZ, so that the xlog buffer has a fixed
size in kb.
Reasonable wal
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 22:14 -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> I would have gotten this out sooner but I'm having trouble with our
> infrastructure. Here's a link to a table of data I've started putting
> together regarding XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers on a 4-way Opteron
> system:
> http://developer.o
I would have gotten this out sooner but I'm having trouble with our
infrastructure. Here's a link to a table of data I've started putting
together regarding XLOG_BLCKSZ and wal_buffers on a 4-way Opteron
system:
http://developer.osdl.org/markw/pgsql/xlog_blcksz.html
There are a couple of
12 matches
Mail list logo
