Thanks for these suggestions.
I am beginning to wonder if the issue is deeper.
I set autovacuum to off, then turned off all the connections to the
database, and did a manual vacuum just to see how long it takes.
This was last night my time. I woke up this morning and it has still
not finished.
The maintenance_men given to the DB for this process was 2GB.
There is nothing else going on on the server! Now, even REINDEX is
just failing in the middle:
# REINDEX INDEX new_idx_userid;
server closed the connection unexpectedly
This probably means the server terminated abnormally
before or while processing the request.
The connection to the server was lost. Attempting reset: Failed.
What else could be wrong?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Phoenix <[email protected]> wrote:
>> TOP does not show much beyond "postmaster". How should I use TOP and
>> what info can I give you? This is what it looks like:
>
> We're basically looking to see if the postmaster process doing the
> vacuuming or reindexing is stuck in a D state, which means it's
> waiting on IO.
> hot the c key while it's running and you should get a little more info
> on which processes are what.
>
>> 4799 postgres 15 0 532m 94m 93m D 0.7 1.2 0:00.14
>> postmaster
>
> That is likely the postmaster that is waiting on IO.
>
>> VMSTAT 10 shows this:
>>
>> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
>> wa
>> 3 14 99552 17900 41108 7201712 0 0 42 11 0 0 8 34 41
>> 16
>> 2 17 99552 16468 41628 7203012 0 0 1326 84 1437 154810 7 66
>> 12 15
>> 3 7 99476 16796 41056 7198976 0 0 1398 96 1453 156211 7 66
>> 21 6
>> 3 17 99476 17228 39132 7177240 0 0 1325 68 1529 156111 8 65
>> 16 11
>
> So, we're at 11 to 15% io wait. I'm gonna guess you have 8 cores /
> threads in your CPUs, and 1/8th ot 100% is 12% so looks like you're
> probably IO bound here. iostat tells us more:
>
>> The results of "iostat -xd 10" is:
>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
>> sda 0.00 7.41 0.30 3.50 2.40 87.29 1.20 43.64
>> 23.58 0.13 32.92 10.03 3.81
>> sdb 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
>> sdc 0.00 18.32 158.26 4.10 2519.32 180.98 1259.66
>> 90.49 16.63 13.04 79.91 6.17 100.11
>
> 100% IO utilization, so yea, it's likely that your sdc drive is your
> bottleneck. Given our little data is actually moving through the sdc
> drive, it's not very fast.
>
>> Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rsec/s wsec/s rkB/s wkB/s
>
>> 8GB memory in total. 1GB devoted to PGSQL during these operations.
>> Otherwise, my settings are as follows (and yes I did make the vacuum
>> settings more aggressive based on your email, which has had no
>> apparent impact) --
>
> Yeah, as it gets more aggressive it can use more of your IO bandwidth.
> Since you
>
>> What else can I share?
>
> That's a lot of help. I'm assuming you're running software or
> motherboard fake-raid on this RAID-1 set? I'd suggest buying a $500
> or so battery backed caching RAID controller first, the improvements
> in performance are huge with such a card. You might wanna try testing
> the current RAID-1 set with bonnie++ to get an idea of how fast it is.
>
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
