From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com, Vlad <marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: High SYS CPU - need advise |
Date: | 2012-11-20 16:50:48 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1z78o4+vXH-dFKb3GZ+1mfEeqQrWBJh-Jpuk03Ha7nOHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2012 02:31 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>
>>> no single thing really stands out -- contention is all over the place.
>>> lwlock, pinbuffer, dynahash (especially). I am again suspicious of
>>> bad scheduler interaction. any chance we can fire up pgbouncer?
>>
>>
>> Just want to throw it out there, but we've been having really bad luck with
>> the scheduler recently. But only when we use 8GB (on our 72GB system) for
>> shared_buffers. Cut that down to 4GB, and everything is fine and dandy.
>>
>> I think the kernel devs have added in some overzealous scheduler code on us.
>
> Shared buffer manipulation changing contention is suggesting you're
> running into free list lock issues.
I wouldn't expect so. Increasing shared_buffers should either fix
free list lock contention, or leave it unchanged, not make it worse.
Sounds more like that NUMA/interleave/zone reclaim stuff I could never
wrap my head around.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-11-20 16:53:08 | Re: High SYS CPU - need advise |
Previous Message | r d | 2012-11-20 16:37:12 | Re: Request for help setting up source tree |