On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Michael Kohl michael.k...@tupalo.com wrote:
Cédric, thanks a lot for your answer so far!
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Cédric Villemain
cedric.villemain.deb...@gmail.com wrote:
you have swap used, IO on the swap partition ?
Memory-wise we are fine.
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Mladen Gogala wrote:
Rich wrote:
I am wondering why anyone would do that? Too much overhead and no
reliable enough.
Apparently, NetApp thinks that it is reliable. They're selling that
stuff for years. I know that
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
The sbwait part is from FreeBSD - IPC sockets, but so much blocking on
semwait indicates large contention in PostgreSQL.
I can reproduce this. I
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Jignesh Shah jks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
The sbwait part is from FreeBSD - IPC sockets, but so much blocking on
semwait
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
And the expensive part of the overhead beyond the delay itself is
CountActiveBackends(), which iterates over the entire procArray
structure.
I could have sworn we'd refactored that to
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com wrote:
Manual:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/runtime-config-wal.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-WAL-SETTINGS
Recent discussion:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/mysql-at-facebook/group-commit-in-postgresql/465781235932
It is my
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Rob Wultsch wult...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Jignesh Shah jks...@gmail.com wrote:
The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
would rather
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Jignesh Shah wrote:
The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
would rather make commit_siblings=0 (which the current code
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 11/22/10 02:47, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Ivan Voras wrote:
After 16 clients (which is still good since there are only 12
real cores in the system), the performance drops sharply
Yet another data point to confirm the
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
Well, we're not going to increase the default to gigabytes, but we could
very probably increase it by a factor of 10 or so without anyone
squawking. It's been awhile since I heard of
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Jignesh Shah wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I asked on IRC and was told it is true, and looking at the C code
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
I asked on IRC and was told it is true, and looking at the C code it
looks true. ?What synchronous_commit = false does is to delay writing
the wal buffers to disk
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Jignesh, All:
Most of our Solaris users have been, I think, following Jignesh's advice
from his benchmark tests to set ZFS page size to 8K for the data zpool.
However, I've discovered that this is sometimes a serious
Hello Ian,
I have done some testing with postgresql and ZFS on Solaris 10 11/06.
While I work for Sun, I dont claim to be a ZFS expert (for that matter
not even Solaris or PostgreSQL).
Lets first look at the scenarios of how postgresql can be deployed on
Solaris
First the Solaris Options
1.
Hello All,
I am using the latest 8.2 source that I compiled with Sun Studio 11 and
tested it on Solaris 10 11/06 against an app server. I find that the CPU
utilization was higher than I expected and started digging through it.
Aparently the top CPU usage comes from the following stack trace
Steve,
Are you using the latest update release of Solaris 10 ?
When you are doing the copy, did you check with prstat -amL to see if it
is saturating on any CPU?
If it is saturating on a CPU then atleast it will narrow down that you
need to improve the CPU utilization of the copy process.
Hi Arjen,
I am curious about your Sun Studio compiler options also.
Can you send that too ?
Any other tweakings that you did on Solaris?
Thanks.
Regards,
Jignesh
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
On 29-7-2006 19:01, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well I would be curious about the postgresql.conf and
let me know also with your
experience.
Regards,
Jignesh
- Original Message -
From: Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, December 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1
To: Jignesh Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Juan Casero [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql
,
Jignesh
- Original Message -
From: Luke Lonergan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PostgreSQL and Ultrasparc T1
To: Jignesh Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Juan Casero [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Jignesh,
On 12/19/05 11:29
is interested in actually working a design ..
contact me and I will be interested in assisting this work.
Regards,
Jignesh
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 06:09:09PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jignesh Shah) writes:
Does that include
Does that include increasing the size of read/write blocks? I've
noticedthat with a large enough table it takes a while to do a
sequential scan,
even if it's cached; I wonder if the fact that it takes a million
read(2) calls to get through an 8G table is part of that.
Actually some of
Hello,
I am running PostgreSQL 8.0.x on Solaris 10 AMD64. My Tablesize for this
test is about 80G. When I run a query on a column which is not indexed, I
get a full table scan query and that's what I am testing right now. (I am
artificially creating that scenario to improve that corner
Original Message Follows
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jignesh Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] MemoryContextSwitchTo during table scan?
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:41:40 -0400
Jignesh Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Running a script (available
Hi Paul,
I was passed your message... regarding DSS workload with Postgres on Solaris.
(I am not in the alias).
Performance is relative to your workload. Can you actually send us what you are
doing in your queries, updates etc?
I have been running few tests myself and here are my rules of
24 matches
Mail list logo
