Hi, In MariaDB Server 10.2, is the default storage engine InnoDB instead of XtraDB? The feature MDEV-11659 Move the InnoDB doublewrite buffer to flat files <https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-11659>, I remember that the similarly feature was implement in XtraDB before MariaDB 10.0 and it can set the parameter named innodb_doublewrite_file in my.cnf but removed it from MariaDB 10.0. Is it not worth in MariaDB? Or is it difficult to manage two space (trx_sys_space and trx_doublewrite_space) in development I think?
Best Regards, Hank Lyu 2017-02-09 17:28 GMT+08:00 Marko Mäkelä <marko.mak...@mariadb.com>: > Hi, > I think that the doublewrite buffer would become more flexible and perform > better if it was moved out of the InnoDB system tablespace. Then we could > use any number of pages and not be limited to 128 pages. > I filed MDEV-11659 Move the InnoDB doublewrite buffer to flat files > <https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-11659> some time ago. I would be > glad to see a contributed patch, or maybe I will find time to do it myself > at some point in the future. > > We do not have a working XtraDB in MariaDB Server 10.2. As far as I > understand, the copy that is in the source tree at storage/xtradb is based > on MySQL 5.6, not on 5.7. The InnoDB in 10.2 is based on MySQL 5.7. > > Best regards, > > Marko > <https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-11659> > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Laurynas Biveinis < > laurynas.bivei...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hank - >> >> A very similar idea has been implemented in XtraDB of Percona Server >> 5.7, see "Parallel Doublewrite" at >> https://www.percona.com/doc/percona-server/5.7/performance/ >> xtradb_performance_improvements_for_io-bound_highly-concurrent_workloads. >> html >> >> AFAIK, this feature is not in XtraDB of MariaDB as of today. >> >> 2017-02-09 9:32 GMT+02:00 Hank Lyu <hanklgs9...@gmail.com>: >> > Hello: >> > >> > In XtraDB, if we adjust the size of doublewrite buffer and relative >> variable >> > (i.e. srv_doublewrite_batch_size) , in theory, we can get better >> throughput >> > when buffer pool flush to disk. >> > >> > I wonder that why doublewrite buffer size is 2 block and each flush page >> > number is 120 (decided by srv_doublewrite_batch_size), instead >> doublewrite >> > size is 8 and each flush page number is 500 or more? >> > Is it worry about that when doing flush will occupy too much resource or >> > other reason? >> > >> > Best Regard >> > Hank Lyu >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >> > Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Laurynas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >> Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > > -- > DON’T MISS > M|17 > April 11 - 12, 2017 > The Conrad Hotel > New York City > https://m17.mariadb.com/ > > Marko Mäkelä, Lead Developer InnoDB > MariaDB Corporation >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
