Re: High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server

The problem with this is that it doesn't leverage shared buffers and
kernel buffers well.

Anyways, my bet is that your SAN isn't performing as you expect on
the new hardware.

Dave
On 5-Apr-07, at 4:13 PM, John Allgood wrote:

> We run multiple postmasters because we can shutdown one postmaster/
> database
> without affecting the other postmasters/databases. Each database is a
> division in our company. If we had everything under one postmaster if
> something happened to the one the whole company would be down.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Cramer
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: John Allgood
> Cc: 'Jeff Frost'; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server
>
>
> On 5-Apr-07, at 3:33 PM, John Allgood wrote:
>
>> The hard thing about running multiple postmasters is that you have
>> to tune
>> each one separate. Most of the databases I have limited the max-
>> connections
>> to 30-50 depending on the database. What would reasonable values for
>> effective_cache_size and random_page_cost. I think I have these
>> default.
>> Also what about kernel buffers on RHEL4.
>>
> random_page_cost should be left alone
>
> Why do you run multiple postmasters ? I don't think this is not the
> most efficient way to utilize your hardware.
>
> Dave
>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Jeff
>> Frost
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:24 PM
>> To: John Allgood
>> Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High Load on Postgres 7.4.16 Server
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, John Allgood wrote:
>>
>>> Hello All
>>>
>>> I sent this message to the admin list and it never got through so I
>>> am trying the performance list.
>>> We moved our application to a new machine last night. It is a Dell
>>> PowerEdge 6950 2X Dual Core. AMD Opteron 8214 2.2Ghz. 8GB Memory.
>>> The
>>> machine is running Redhat AS 4 Upd 4 and Redhat Cluster Suite. The
>>> SAN is
>> an
>>> EMC SAS connected via fibre. We are using Postgres 7.4.16. We have
>> recently
>>> had some major hardware issues and replaced the hardware with
>>> brand new
>> Dell
>>> equipment. We expected a major performance increase over the
>>> previous
>> being
>>> the old equipment was nearly three years old
>>> I will try and explain how things are configured. We have 10
>>> separate postmasters running 5 on each node. Each of the
>>> postmasters is a
>>> single instance of each database. Each database is separated by
>>> division
>> and
>>> also we have them separate so we can restart an postmaster with
>>> needing to
>>> restart all databases My largest database is about 7 GB. And the
>>> others
>> run
>>> anywhere from 100MB - 1.8GB.
>>> The other configuration was RHEL3 and Postgres 7.4.13 and Redhat
>>> Cluster Suite. The application seemed to run much faster on the
>>> older
>>> equipment.
>>> My thoughts on the issues are that I could be something with the OS
>>> tuning. Here is what my kernel.shmmax, kernel.shmall =
>>> 1073741824. Is
>> there
>>> something else that I could tune in the OS. My max_connections=35
>>> and
>> shared
>>> buffers=8192 for my largest database.
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Was the SAN connected to the previous machine or is it also a new
>> addition
>> with the Dell hardware? We had a fairly recent post regarding a
>> similar
>> upgrade in which the SAN ended up being the problem, so the first
>> thing I
>> would do is test the SAN with bonnie-++ and/or move your
>> application to use
>> a
>> local disk and test again. With 8GB of RAM, I'd probably set the
>> shared_buffers to at least 50000...If I remember correctly, this
>> was the
>> most
>> you could set it to on 7.4.x and continue benefitting from it. I'd
>> strongly
>>
>> encourage you to upgrade to at least 8.1.8 (and possibly 8.2.3) if
>> you can,
>> as
>> it has much better shared memory management. You might also want
>> to double
>> check your effective_cache_size and random_page_cost to see if they
>> are set
>> to
>> reasonable values. Did you just copy the old postgresql.conf over?
>>
>> This is the beginning of the thread I mentioned above:
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2007-03/msg00104.php
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Frost, Owner <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
>> Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
>> Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date:
>> 4/4/2007
>> 1:09 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date:
> 4/4/2007
> 1:09 PM
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match