From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |
Date: | 2002-05-28 05:43:43 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.43.0205281441420.454-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Robert Norris <srn(at)commsecure(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > One big difference, though, is that with the vacuum problem, the CPU
> > used is almost all (99%) system time; loading up the db with lots of
> > queries increases user time mostly, with little system time...
>
> Hmm, that's a curious point; leaves one wondering about possible kernel
> bugs.
If it turns out to be so, this would not be the first problem I've
heard about in the Linux scheduler. (It was notoriously bad for years.)
I'd suggest a good test would be to try this on a BSD machine and
see if the problem exists there, too. That will at least tell you
if it's Postgres or Linux.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Robert Norris | 2002-05-28 05:46:25 | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |
Previous Message | Stephen Robert Norris | 2002-05-28 05:02:15 | Re: How to cripple a postgres server |