Обсуждение: Linux 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases - does that apply to Postgresql too?
Linux 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases - does that apply to Postgresql too?
От
Martin_Hurst@dom.com
Дата:
I was reading the following Information Week article: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10100565&pgno=2 ------------------------------------------------ Linux is likely to make inroads in the enterprise with the release later this year of the 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases, Witham says. Changes to the Linux 2.6 kernel will let programs access more data with greater reliability and run heavier processing loads. It will improve the performance of databases on eight- and 16-way symmetric multiprocessor servers, include new file systems that provide faster access to data with greater reliability, and make it easier to manage and configure storage on large arrays. ------------------------------------------------ Are there plans to have Postgresql take advantage of the new Linux 2.6 kernel? -Martin
Afaik, most of such changes to the new kernel branch are independent of whatever you run on top of it. There are improvements in scheduling of processes and threads, there are improvements on diskacessing algortims (I think) and such. All databases have more or less similar requirements, like: Fast random disk access, efficient multithreading/multiprocessing With such kernelimprovements, postgresql will probably automatically take advantage of such improvements. On the other hand, there might be a few kernelparameters that need tuning and those should be explained in the performance-tuning documents, as soon as there is more information on their behaviour and such :) Regards, Arjen > Martin_Hurst@dom.com wrote: > > I was reading the following Information Week article: > http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?article ID=10100565&pgno=2 ------------------------------------------------ Linux is likely to make inroads in the enterprise with the release later this year of the 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases, Witham says. Changes to the Linux 2.6 kernel will let programs access more data with greater reliability and run heavier processing loads. It will improve the performance of databases on eight- and 16-way symmetric multiprocessor servers, include new file systems that provide faster access to data with greater reliability, and make it easier to manage and configure storage on large arrays. ------------------------------------------------ Are there plans to have Postgresql take advantage of the new Linux 2.6 kernel? -Martin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 08:21, Martin_Hurst@dom.com wrote: > I was reading the following Information Week article: > http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10100565&pgno=2 > > ------------------------------------------------ > Linux is likely to make inroads in the enterprise with the release later > this year of the 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases, Witham says. > Changes to the Linux 2.6 kernel will let programs access more data with > greater reliability and run heavier processing loads. It will improve the > performance of databases on eight- and 16-way symmetric multiprocessor > servers, include new file systems that provide faster access to data with > greater reliability, and make it easier to manage and configure storage on > large arrays. > ------------------------------------------------ > > Are there plans to have Postgresql take advantage of the new Linux 2.6 > kernel? Since PostgreSQL is a Unix RDBMS, not a Linux DBMS, and already uses multiple CPUs if possible, does it really matter how Linux changes? Shouldn't PG automatically take advantage of new features, maybe after a backup/restore to new disk drives/filesystems? -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net | | Jefferson, LA USA http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson | | | | Regarding war zones: "There's nothing sacrosanct about a | | hotel with a bunch of journalists in it." | | Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor (Retired) | +-----------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:55:19PM +0200, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > Afaik, most of such changes to the new kernel branch are independent of > whatever you run on top of it. > There are improvements in scheduling of processes and threads, there are > improvements on diskacessing algortims (I think) and such. However there are a couple of things that probably will need some effort from the PgSQL camp. Examples are the futexes thing (fast mostly-user-space mutexes that are said to be much faster than SysV semaphores) and async I/O. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) Y dijo Dios: "Que sea Satanás, para que la gente no me culpe de todo a mí." "Y que hayan abogados, para que la gente no culpe de todo a Satanás"
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 09:55:19PM +0200, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > > Afaik, most of such changes to the new kernel branch are independent of > > whatever you run on top of it. > > There are improvements in scheduling of processes and threads, there are > > improvements on diskacessing algortims (I think) and such. > > However there are a couple of things that probably will need some > effort from the PgSQL camp. Examples are the futexes thing (fast > mostly-user-space mutexes that are said to be much faster than SysV > semaphores) and async I/O. Of course, we use SysV semaphores only to sleep on while waiting for an event, like a lock release, so there isn't much win there --- we already have user-space mutexes in shared memory on all platforms. And on async, I don't think we have a sure benefit from that either. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Sun, Jun 08, 2003 at 10:10:04PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 08:21, Martin_Hurst@dom.com wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Linux is likely to make inroads in the enterprise with the release later > > this year of the 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases, Witham says. > > Since PostgreSQL is a Unix RDBMS, not a Linux DBMS, and already > uses multiple CPUs if possible, does it really matter how Linux > changes? Yes it does matter. The Linux port can be improved and more performance can be obtained. This doesn't mean the other ports are going to be abandoned. OTOH the quoted article contained more hype and marketing buzz than real substance AFAICT... -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Acepta los honores y aplausos y perderas tu libertad"
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 Martin_Hurst@dom.com wrote: > I was reading the following Information Week article: > http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10100565&pgno=2 > > ------------------------------------------------ > Linux is likely to make inroads in the enterprise with the release later > this year of the 2.6 kernel, tuned for use with databases, Witham says. > Changes to the Linux 2.6 kernel will let programs access more data with > greater reliability and run heavier processing loads. It will improve the > performance of databases on eight- and 16-way symmetric multiprocessor > servers, include new file systems that provide faster access to data with > greater reliability, and make it easier to manage and configure storage on > large arrays. > ------------------------------------------------ > > Are there plans to have Postgresql take advantage of the new Linux 2.6 > kernel? Nothing really needs to be done. If Linux 2.6 is faster at SMP, then postgresql gets to be faster too. The APIs haven't changed, the kernel's just been made to run more efficiently under high load, so Postgresql will just run faster. That's what's so nice about good modular design. The pgsql team don't have to pay a lot of attention to the differences between bsd, linux, hpux, solaris, etc... to get good performance. I rememeber seeing noticeable performance gains going from the 2.2 kernel to the 2.4 kernel, I'm sure I'll see them again when 2.6 goes live.