From: | Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |
Date: | 2002-05-28 02:04:50 |
Message-ID: | 1022551491.2670.11.camel@ws12 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 11:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > 1) Open many (I used 800) database connections and leave them idle.
> > 2) run: while true; do vacuum {database} ; done
>
> > Wait. Observe db has stopped doing useful work.
>
> Is your machine capable of supporting 800 active backends in the absence
> of any vacuum processing? I'm not sure that "we're driving our server
> into swapping hell" qualifies as a Postgres bug ...
>
> If you're seeing load peaks in excess of what would be observed with
> 800 active queries, then I would agree there's something to investigate
> here.
>
> regards, tom lane
Yep, indeed with 800 backends doing a query every second, nothing
happens.
The machine itself has 1GB of RAM, and uses no swap in the above
situation. Instead, system time goes to 99% of CPU. The machine is a
dual-CPU athlon 1900 (1.5GHz).
It _only_ happens with idle connections!
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2002-05-28 02:22:59 | Re: is there any backend (server) timeout undocumented? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-05-28 01:57:22 | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |