On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
>> http://blog.jcole.us/2010/09/28/mysql-swap-insanity-and-the-numa-archite
>> cture/
>
>
> Yeah, I remember reading that a while back. While interesting, it doesn't
> really apply to PG, in that unlike MySQL, we don't allocate any large memory
On 10/22/2012 01:14 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
You may want to try setting the numa policy before launching postgres:
numactl --interleave=all pg_ctl start
I thought about that. I'd try it on one of our stage nodes, but both of
them show an even memory split. I'm not sure why our prod node is
On 10/22/2012 01:20 PM, Franklin, Dan (FEN) wrote:
http://blog.jcole.us/2010/09/28/mysql-swap-insanity-and-the-numa-archite
cture/
Yeah, I remember reading that a while back. While interesting, it
doesn't really apply to PG, in that unlike MySQL, we don't allocate any
large memory segments d
This is a good general discussion of the problem - looks like you could
replace "MySQL" with "PostgreSQL" everywhere without loss of generality:
http://blog.jcole.us/2010/09/28/mysql-swap-insanity-and-the-numa-archite
cture/
Dan
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresq
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
>
>> Did you check the kernel's zone_reclaim_mode ?
>
>
> It's currently set to 0, which as I'm led to believe, is the setting I want
> there.
Yep
> But here's something interesting:
>
> numactl --hardware
>
> available: 2 nodes (0-1)
> node 0
On 10/22/2012 12:53 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
Did you check the kernel's zone_reclaim_mode ?
It's currently set to 0, which as I'm led to believe, is the setting I
want there. But here's something interesting:
numactl --hardware
available: 2 nodes (0-1)
node 0 cpus: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:49:49PM -0500, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> Trust me, there's plenty. We have a DB that's 6x larger than RAM
> that's currently experiencing 6000TPS, and according to iostat,
> anywhere from 20-60% disk utilization that's mostly reads.
Could it be related to zone_reclaim_mode
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
>> Maybe there's just nothing to put inside?
>> How big is your database? How much of it gets accessed?
>
>
> Trust me, there's plenty. We have a DB that's 6x larger than RAM that's
> currently experiencing 6000TPS, and according to iostat, anyw
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:35:32 -0500
Shaun Thomas wrote:
> Hey everyone!
>
> This is pretty embarrassing, but I've never seen this before. This is
> our system's current memory allocation from 'free -m':
>
> total used free buffers cached
> Mem: 72485
On 10/22/2012 12:44 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
Maybe there's just nothing to put inside?
How big is your database? How much of it gets accessed?
Trust me, there's plenty. We have a DB that's 6x larger than RAM that's
currently experiencing 6000TPS, and according to iostat, anywhere from
20-6
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> So, I've got 14GB of RAM that the OS is just refusing to use for disk or
> page cache. Does anyone know what might cause that?
Maybe there's just nothing to put inside?
How big is your database? How much of it gets accessed?
--
Sent via p
Hey everyone!
This is pretty embarrassing, but I've never seen this before. This is
our system's current memory allocation from 'free -m':
total used free buffers cached
Mem: 72485 58473 14012 3 34020
-/+ buffers/cache: 244
12 matches
Mail list logo
