Re: RC1 time?

On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> > > >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
> > >
> > > > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied. Was
> > > > there another issue?
> > >
> > > Yes. He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> > > problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date. Thomas thought it
> > > might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> > > 7.1 to 7.2. See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
> > >
> > > (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> > > awful lot of traffic? For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> > > comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> > > being its only omission lately.)
> >
> > We just moved it from the old server (that I have to shut down) to the new
> > one at Rackspace ... the one thing I have to do over the next short period
> > of time is to spring for a memory upgrade on that machine though, as
> > 512Meg just doesn't cut it :(
>
> I see on db.postgresql.org
>
> > vmstat -w 5
> procs memory page disks faults cpu
> r b w avm fre flt re pi po fr sr da0 da1 in sy cs us sy id
> 0 17 0 471224 28184 369 3 4 2 325 334 0 0 331 401 182 29 2 69
>
> 0 19 0 414556 19272 644 1 1 0 546 0 0 172 461 823 290 1 2 97
> 1 19 0 414788 23940 459 4 4 1 474 615 1 170 454 734 286 0 2 98
> 1 20 0 428592 26912 372 3 14 0 433 592 6 182 480 790 296 1 2 97
> 2 19 0 458688 30164 318 3 9 0 423 592 3 177 463 787 289 1 2 97
> 1 17 0 446848 24196 303 2 4 0 454 0 2 177 463 878 294 1 2 97
> 0 18 0 452432 29404 228 1 3 2 324 633 2 184 472 842 305 2 4 94
> 0 19 0 449724 21860 200 14 6 0 508 0 1 188 473 702 283 0 2 98
>
> disk activity is very bad, probably not balanced. I catch a moment
> when fts.postgresql.org was slow.

Most of it is due to the high swap being used .. I've had two offers so
far to help upgrade the RAM, and am looking into the costs of doing so ...