| From: | Jeff Trout <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tim Allen <tim(at)proximity(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SAN performance mystery |
| Date: | 2006-06-16 17:58:31 |
| Message-ID: | 922914D7-46ED-4623-905A-C56058551905@torgo.978.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Jun 16, 2006, at 5:11 AM, Tim Allen wrote:
>
> One curious thing is that some postgres backends seem to spend an
> inordinate amount of time in uninterruptible iowait state. I found
> a posting to this list from December 2004 from someone who reported
> that very same thing. For example, bringing down postgres on the
> customer box requires kill -9, because there are invariably one or
> two processes so deeply uninterruptible as to not respond to a
> politer signal. That indicates something not quite right, doesn't it?
>
Sounds like there could be a driver/array/kernel bug there that is
kicking the performance down the tube.
If it was PG's fault it wouldn't be stuck uninterruptable.
--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
http://www.dellsmartexitin.com/
http://www.stuarthamm.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-06-16 18:14:47 | Re: Test request for Stats collector performance improvement |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-06-16 17:01:56 | Re: Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL community |