| From: | "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Context switching and Xeon processors |
| Date: | 2005-12-06 21:45:04 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58L.0512061540430.1468@cash.rhiamet.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
t == tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us writes:
t> "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com> writes:
t> > We've been tuning the kernel (2.4 SMP flavor) and have improved
t> > performance quite a bit. I'm now wondering if turning off HT will
t> > improve performance even more. Based on the vmstat output below, is
t> > the context switching typical or too high?
t> Given that your CPU usage is hovering around 2%, it's highly unlikely
t> that you'll be able to measure any change at all by fiddling with HT.
t> What you need to be working on is disk I/O --- the "80% wait" number
t> is what should be getting your attention, not the CS number.
t> (FWIW, on the sort of hardware you're talking about, I wouldn't worry
t> about CS rates lower than maybe 10000/sec --- the hardware can sustain
t> well over 10x that.)
Yes, I agree the disk I/O is an issue and that's what we've been
addressing with the tuning we've been doing and have been able to
improve. I think that we really need to go to a RAID 10 array to
address the I/O issue, but thought I would investigate the context
switching issue.
Thanks for the information.
--
Brandon
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-12-06 21:52:22 | Re: Context switching and Xeon processors |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2005-12-06 21:42:09 | Re: Missed index opportunity for outer join? |