Our production database is seeing very heavy CPU utilization - anyone
have any ideas/input considering the following?
CPU utilization gradually increases during the day until it approaches
90%-100% at our peak time. When this happens our transactions/sec
drops and our site becomes very slo
On Monday 16 March 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
> Right now (not under peak load) this server is running at 68% CPU
> utilization and its SATA raid 10 is doing about 2MB/s writes and 11MB/
> s reads. When I run dd I can hit 200+MB/s writes and 230+ MB/s reads,
> so we are barely using the available IO.
Here is vmstat 1 30. We are under peak load right now so I can gather
information from the real deal :)
Had an almost complete lockup a moment ago, number of non-idle
postgres connections was 637. Going to drop our JDBC pool sizes a bit
and bounce everything.
procs ---memory
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
Here is vmstat 1 30. We are under peak load right now so I can gather
information from the real deal
Quite helpful, reformatting a bit and picking an informative section:
procs ---memory-----swap- io--- -system-- cpu
r b
I dropped the pool sizes and brought things back up. Things are
stable, site is fast, CPU utilization is still high. Probably just a
matter of time before issue comes back (we get slammed as kids get out
of school in the US).
Now when I run vmtstat 1 30 it looks very different (below). W
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
> I dropped the pool sizes and brought things back up. Things are stable,
> site is fast, CPU utilization is still high. Probably just a matter of time
> before issue comes back (we get slammed as kids get out of school in the
> US).
Yeah, I'm gue
Greg Smith writes:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
>
>> Here is vmstat 1 30. We are under peak load right now so I can gather
>> information from the real deal
>
> Quite helpful, reformatting a bit and picking an informative section:
>
> procs ---memory-----swap- io
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
Now when I run vmtstat 1 30 it looks very different (below).
That looks much better. Obviously you'd like some more headroom on the
CPU situation than you're seeing, but that's way better than having so
much time spent waiting for I/O.
max_connections
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
Hm, well the tests I ran for posix_fadvise were actually on a Perc5 -- though
who knows if it was the same under the hood -- and I saw better performance
than this. I saw about 4MB/s for a single drive and up to about 35MB/s for 15
drives. However this w
On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
Hm, well the tests I ran for posix_fadvise were actually on a Perc5
-- though
who knows if it was the same under the hood -- and I saw better
performance
than this. I saw about 4MB/s for a single drive
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, well the tests I ran for posix_fadvise were actually on a Perc5 --
>>> though
>>> who knows if it was the same under the hood -- and I saw bet
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
On Mar 17, 2009, at 12:19 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
Hm, well the tests I ran for posix_fadvise were actually on a
Perc5 --
though
who knows if it was t
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> What does the cs entry on vmstat say at this time? If you're cs is
>> skyrocketing then you're getting a context switch storm, which is
>> usually a sign that there are just too many things g
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
What does the cs entry on vmstat say at this time? If you're cs is
skyrocketing then you're getting a context switch storm, which is
usually
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Joe Uhl wrote:
On Mar 20, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
What does the cs entry on vmstat say at this time? If you're cs is
skyrocketing then you're getting a context switch storm, which is
usually
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
Can anyone recommend a whitebox vendor?
I dumped a list of recommended vendors from a discussion here a while back
at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SCSI_vs._IDE/SATA_Disks you could get
started with.
--
* Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.greg
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
>
>> Can anyone recommend a whitebox vendor?
>
> I dumped a list of recommended vendors from a discussion here a while back
> at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SCSI_vs._IDE/SATA_Disks you could get
> started
At 02:47 PM 3/24/2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
Turns out we may have an opportunity to purchase a new database
server with this increased load. Seems that the best route, based
on feedback to this thread, is to go whitebox, get quad opterons,
and get a very good disk controller.
Can anyone recommend
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Ron wrote:
> At 02:47 PM 3/24/2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
>
>> Turns out we may have an opportunity to purchase a new database server
>> with this increased load. Seems that the best route, based on feedback to
>> this thread, is to go whitebox, get quad opterons, and ge
On 3/24/09 4:16 PM, "Scott Marlowe" wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Ron wrote:
>> At 02:47 PM 3/24/2009, Joe Uhl wrote:
>>
>>> Turns out we may have an opportunity to purchase a new database server
>>> with this increased load. Seems that the best route, based on feedback to
>>> thi
20 matches
Mail list logo
