| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |
| Date: | 2002-05-28 02:44:03 |
| Message-ID: | 29597.1022553843@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
>> 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.
> 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!
Hmm, you mean if the 800 other connections are *not* idle, you can
do VACUUMs with impunity? If so, I'd agree we got a bug ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Francisco Reyes | 2002-05-28 03:07:47 | FreeBSD vs Red Hat. Will give feedback soon (Re: Moving data from FreeBSD to Red Hat) |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2002-05-28 02:22:59 | Re: is there any backend (server) timeout undocumented? |