On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> If setting up the ssh tunnel is the problem, you could assess whether you
> really need that security, or compile a custom postgresql with larger WAL
> file sizes, or write a fancy archive_command which first archives the files
> to a local direc
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Joao Junior wrote:
> Hi friends,
>
> I am running 2 Linux machines, kernel 3.13.0-45-generic #74-Ubuntu SMP.
> Postgresql version 9.4 in both machine, in a Hot Standby cenario.
>
> Master-Slave using WAL files, not streaming replication.
>
> The archive_command f
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Benjamin Toueg wrote:
> I don't see how this can be due to network latency!
I'm not suggesting it is due to network latency -- it is due to the
latency for storage requests. That won't depend on network latency
unless you are going to a LAN for storage.
--
Kevin
> Rick, what did you mean by kernel configuration? The OS is a standard
Ubuntu 16.04:
>
> - Linux 4.4.0-45-generic #66-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 19 14:12:37 UTC 2016
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
> Do you think losing half the number of cores can explain my performance
issue ? (AMD 8 cores down to Hasw
My guess would be that your server upgrade wasn't the upgrade you thought
it was.
You network latency could definitely be the cause of most of this. The
problem is you're not measuring this from the server side. It's not only
going to impact connect time, but you're going to get your data a bit
sl
I've noticed a network latency increase. Ping between web server and
database : 0.6 ms avg before, 5.3 ms avg after -- it wasn't that big 4 days
ago :(
I've narrowed my investigation to one particular "Transaction" in terms of
the NewRelic APM. It's basically the main HTTP request of my applicatio
