Martijn
Thanks for the tip.
Since the connections on this server are from slon, I'm hoping that they
hand around for a *long* time, and long enough to take a look to see
what is going on.
John
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 04:37:42PM -, John Sidney-Woollett wrot
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 04:37:42PM -, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
> I'll run this over the next few days and especially as the server starts
> bogging down to see if it identifies the culprit.
>
> Is it possible to grab memory outsize of a processes space? Or would a
> leak always show up by a
"John Sidney-Woollett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it possible to grab memory outsize of a processes space?
Not unless there's a kernel bug involved.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to inc
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 09:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Sidney-Woollett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> *What* is consuming memory, exactly --- which processes?
>
> > Sorry but I don't know how to determine that.
>
> Try "ps auxw", or some other incantation if you prefer, so long
Tom Lane said:
> John Sidney-Woollett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> *What* is consuming memory, exactly --- which processes?
>
>> Sorry but I don't know how to determine that.
>
> Try "ps auxw", or some other incantation if you prefer, so long as it
> includes some statistics a
John Sidney-Woollett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> *What* is consuming memory, exactly --- which processes?
> Sorry but I don't know how to determine that.
Try "ps auxw", or some other incantation if you prefer, so long as it
includes some statistics about process memory use.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:31:52PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >>It sure is. Gentoo with kernel version 2.6.12, built for x86_64.
> >>Looks like we have a contender for the common factor. :)
> >>
> >
> >Please tell me you're *not* running a production database on Gentoo.
> >
> >
>
Sorry but I don't know how to determine that.
We stopped and started postgres yesterday so the server is behaving well
at the moment.
top shows
top - 07:51:48 up 34 days, 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
Tasks: 85 total, 1 running, 84 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0
John Sidney-Woollett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This server just consumes more and more memory until it goes swap crazy
> and the load averages start jumping through the roof.
*What* is consuming memory, exactly --- which processes?
regards, tom lane
-
We're seeing memory problems on one of our postgres databases. We're
using 7.4.6, and I suspect the kernel version is a key factor with this
problem.
One running under Redhat Linux 2.4.18-14smp #1 SMP and the other Debian
Linux 2.6.8.1-4-686-smp #1 SMP
The second Debian server is a replicate
It sure is. Gentoo with kernel version 2.6.12, built for x86_64.
Looks like we have a contender for the common factor. :)
Please tell me you're *not* running a production database on Gentoo.
regards, tom lane
You don't even want to know how many companies I know that are doin
Mike Rylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/12/05, Will Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mike: is your system AMD64, by any chance? The above system is, as is
>> another similar story I heard.
> It sure is. Gentoo with kernel version 2.6.12, built for x86_64.
> Looks like we have a cont
On 12/12/05, Will Glynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Rylander wrote:
>
> >Right, I can definitely see that happening. Some backends are upwards
> >of 200M, some are just a few since they haven't been touched yet.
> >
> >
> >>Now, multiply that effect by N backends doing this at once, and you'
Mike Rylander wrote:
Right, I can definitely see that happening. Some backends are upwards
of 200M, some are just a few since they haven't been touched yet.
Now, multiply that effect by N backends doing this at once, and you'll
have a very skewed view of what's happening in your system.
A
On 12/8/05, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Rylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To cut to the chase, here are
> > some numbers for everyone to digest:
> >total gnu ps resident size
> > # ps ax -o rss|perl -e '$x += $_ for (<>);print "$x\n";'
> > 5810492
> >to
Mike Rylander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To cut to the chase, here are
> some numbers for everyone to digest:
>total gnu ps resident size
> # ps ax -o rss|perl -e '$x += $_ for (<>);print "$x\n";'
> 5810492
>total gnu ps virual size
> # ps ax -o vsz|perl -e '$x += $_ for
On 12/8/05, Kathy Lo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> When the user complains the system becomes very slow, I use top to
> view the memory statistics.
> In top, I cannot find any processes that use so many memory. I just
> found that all the memory was used up and the Swap memory nearly used
>
On 12/8/05, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please keep replies on list, this may help others in the future, and
> also, don't top post (i.e. put your responses after my responses...
> Thanks)
>
> On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 20:16, Kathy Lo wrote:
> > For a back-end database server running Pos
Please keep replies on list, this may help others in the future, and
also, don't top post (i.e. put your responses after my responses...
Thanks)
On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 20:16, Kathy Lo wrote:
> For a back-end database server running Postgresql 8.0.3, it's OK. But,
> this problem seriously affects th
19 matches
Mail list logo
