Re: Performance Woes

From: "Ralph Mason" <ralph(dot)mason(at)telogis(dot)com>
To: "'Jeff Davis'" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "'Joshua D(dot) Drake'" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "'CAJ CAJ'" <pguser(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance Woes
Date: 2007-05-10 01:45:28
Message-ID: 014501c792a4$e8407a20$b8c16e60$@mason@telogis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

>To me, that means that his machine is allowing the new FD to be created,
>but then can't really support that many so it gives an error.

files-max is 297834
ulimit is 1000000

(doesn't make sense but there you go)

What I don’t really understand is with max_files_per_process at 800 we don't
get the problem, but with 1000 we do.

$lsof | wc -l
14944

$cat /proc/sys/fs/file-nr
12240 0 297834

>Ralph, how many connections do you have open at once? It seems like the
>machine perhaps just can't handle that many FDs in all of those
>processes at once.

There are only 30 connections - of those probably only 10 are really active.
It doesn't seem like we should be stressing this machine/

>That is a lot of tables. Maybe a different OS will handle it better?
>Maybe there's some way that you can use fewer connections and then the
>OS could still handle it?

It would be less but then you can't maintain the db b/c of the constant
vacuuming needed :-( I think the linux folks would get up in arms if you
told them they couldn't handle that many open files ;-)

Thanks,
Ralph

--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/573 - Release Date: 05/12/2006
16:07

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Mohekey 2007-05-10 01:50:26 Re: Performance Woes
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2007-05-10 00:42:19 Re: Performance Woes