On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > On 3/8/17 8:36 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: >> >> From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >>> >>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] 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:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com] >>> >>> 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? >
I have provided my feedback and I could not test it on my machine. I think Ashutosh Sharma has tested it. I can give it another look, but not sure if it helps. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
