alexandre - aldeia digital <adald...@gmail.com> wrote: > Notice that we have no idle % in cpu column. So they're making full use of all the CPUs they paid for. That in itself isn't a problem. Unfortunately you haven't given us nearly enough information to know whether there is indeed a problem, or if so, what. What was throughput before? What is it now? How has latency been affected? And all those unanswered questions from my first email.... The problem *might* be something along the lines of most of the discussion on the thread. It might not be. I just don't know yet, myself. > 14:26:47 up 2 days, 3:26, 4 users, load average: 48.61, > 46.12, 40.47 This has me wondering again about your core count and your user connections. > My client wants to remove the extra memory... :/ Maybe we should identify the problem. It might be that a connection pooler is the solution. On the other hand, if critical production applications are suffering, it might make sense to take this out of production and figure out a safer place to test things and sort this out. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
