Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, I thought it was a little odd. Postgres does so much
> > > fsync()ing that I thought it may just have been that the lower
> > > overhead won out over ext2's cleverer layout. All the I/O was
> > > basically fsync-driven, so this test was only about write
> > > performance.
> >
> > For fsync-intensive loads ext3's best mode is generally
> > data=journal. That way, an fsync is satisfied by a nice
> > single linear write to the journal.
>
> Here we are. This is with just a 200Mb journal (the partition
> is only a little over 1Gb, and the datafiles grow fairly big,
> so I didn't brave making it any bigger).
>
> tuning? single ir mx-ir oltp mixed-oltp
> (sec) (tps) (sec) (tps) (sec)
> ext3 bn 1285.32 65.98 1996.41 90.05 307.79
> ext3-wb bn 1287.31 98.42 2149.38 125.13 236.02
> ext3-jd bn 1306.90 72.07 1813.54 125.15 305.27
Oh well.
It sounds like a useful and valid workload to optimise
for. So I'll take you up on the offer of those scripts,
please.
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 31 2002 - 22:00:14 EST