From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |
Date: | 2011-11-04 17:22:42 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYU069d+WWw5GUgBD_oAYiONR-BXC_YOeUVwBm+wD-BVg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Before anything else, you might want to make sure you've spread your
> checkpoint activity as much as possible by setting
> checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9.
We have
shared_buffers = 2G
bgwriter_delay = 1000ms
effective_io_concurrency=8
synchronous_commit=off
wal_buffers=16M
wal_writer_delay=2000ms
commit_delay=10000
checkpoint_segments=72
checkpoint_timeout=60min
checkpoint_completion_target=0.8
I'm thinking bgwriter_delay and wal_writer_delay might not be working
as I expected, and that maybe checkpoint_segments=72 is a bit too
high, but we were having much worse I/O storms before I pushed it that
high. Looking at checkpoint logging for the last few days, it goes
almost always like:
checkpoint complete: wrote 589 buffers (3.6%); 0 transaction log
file(s) added, 0 removed, 8 recycled; write=590.325 s, sync=0.055 s,
total=590.417 s
590s seems an awful lot for 589 buffers.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shaun Thomas | 2011-11-04 18:26:39 | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-04 17:07:49 | Re: Blocking excessively in FOR UPDATE |