Re: Scalability in postgres

From: David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Scalability in postgres
Date: 2009-05-28 20:12:17
Message-ID: 72dbd3150905281312j4df91162scca87e32086ddbac@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Fabrix <fabrixio1(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Monitoring (nmon, htop, vmstat) see that everything is fine (memory, HD,
> eth, etc) except that processors regularly climb to 100%.

What kind of load are you putting the server under when this happens?

> I can see that the processes are waiting for CPU time:
>
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- -----cpu------
> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st
> 0 0 0 47119688 117420 17142044 0 0 0 200 1545 1810 1 1 98 0 0
> 318 0 0 47116464 117440 17142052 0 0 0 532 1416 2396 1 0 99 0 0
> 500 0 0 47115224 117440 17142052 0 0 0 0 1118 322144 91 5 4 0 0
> 440 0 0 47114728 117440 17142044 0 0 0 0 1052 333137 90 5 5 0 0
> 339 0 0 47114484 117440 17142048 0 0 0 0 1061 337528 85 4 11 0 0
> 179 0 0 47114112 117440 17142048 0 0 0 0 1066 312873 71 4 25 0 0
> 5 1 0 47122180 117468 17142028 0 0 192 3128 1958 136804 23 2 75 1 0
> 3 0 0 47114264 117476 17142968 0 0 608 5828 2688 4684 7 2 89 2 0

Wow, that's some serious context-switching right there - 300k context
switches a second mean that the processors are spending a lot of their
time fighting for CPU time instead of doing any real work.

It appears that you have the server configured with a very high number
of connections as well? My first suggestion would be to look at a way
to limit the number of active connections to the server at a time
(pgPool or similar).

-Dave

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2009-05-28 20:22:27 Re: Scalability in postgres
Previous Message Greg Jaman 2009-05-28 19:38:41 Re: Storing sensor data