Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Date: 2015-06-18 15:12:26
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaNA8HZUV+VsZzQqjiqphmxv1zLLosdvEUn=i0_aYB-fg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> wrote:
> The whole thing turns out to be based on wrong baseline data, taken with a
> pgbench client running from a remote machine. It all started out from an
> investigation against 9.3. Curiously enough, the s_lock() problem that
> existed in 9.3 has a very similar effect on throughput as a network
> bottleneck has on 9.5.

So, changing max_spins_per_delay no longer helps on 9.5?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-06-18 15:14:24 Re: Auto-vacuum is not running in 9.1.12
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-06-18 14:31:55 Re: "could not adopt C locale" failure at startup on Windows