From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Rajesh Kumar(dot) Mallah" <mallah(at)tradeindia(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: High load average in 64-core server , no I/O wait and CPU is idle |
Date: | 2012-05-24 21:30:19 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpaq6F0JTP6tk2meCsBxHaiMkX65QgVRkR0BqtqzohL1Tw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Rajesh Kumar. Mallah (mallah(at)tradeindia(dot)com) wrote:
>> We are running linux with kernel 3.2.X
>> (which has the lseek improvements)
>
> Ah, good.
>
>> Thanks for the reference , even i thought so (LockManager) ,
>> but we are actually also running out db max connections (also)
>> ( which is currently at 600) , when that happens something at
>> the beginning of the application stack also gets dysfunctional and it
>> changes the very input to the system. ( think of negative feedback systems )
>
> Oh. Yeah, have you considered pgbouncer?
Or pooling at the application level. Many ORMs support connection
pooling and limiting out-of-the-box.
In essence, postgres should never bounce connections, it should all be
handled by the application or a previous pgbouncer, both of which
would do it more efficient and effectively.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-25 03:20:34 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-24 21:24:47 | Re: heavly load system spec |