ormance@postgresql.org
Enviado: lunes 24 de septiembre de 2007, 10:59:26
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
Hi Greg this is my Bonnie result.
Version 1.03 --Sequential Output-- --Sequential Input- --Random-
-Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Se
gsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: sábado 22 de septiembre de 2007, 3:29:17
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which other test can I do to find if this is a hardware, kernel o
> postgres issue?
The little test hdparm does is not exact
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which other test can I do to find if this is a hardware, kernel o
postgres issue?
The little test hdparm does is not exactly a robust hard drive benchmark.
If you want to rule out hard drive transfer speed issues, take at look at
the tests sugges
nviado: viernes 21 de septiembre de 2007, 18:15:40
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
Luiz K. Matsumura wrote:
>> Is connected to full 100Mb, it transfers many things quick to clients.
>> Is running Apache adn JBoss, transfer rate is good, I did scp to copy
>> many archives
Luiz K. Matsumura wrote:
Is connected to full 100Mb, it transfers many things quick to clients.
Is running Apache adn JBoss, transfer rate is good, I did scp to copy
many archives and is as quick as the old server.
I have no idea how to continue researching this problem. Now I'm going
to do s
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Luiz K. Matsumura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but in suddenly the performance slow down. We noticed that the problem
> was with the time to connect with the server, that was very slow.
> I think that was some DNS problem
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
>
>I have no idea how to continue researching this problem. Now I'm going to
do some networks tests.
I would go back to the slow program and try to capture the slow queries in
the log file. Once you have some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's pretty odd. If you use \timing in psql, you can get execution
> time for each query, if it helps you track things down.
Yes, in the new server running with \timing it consumes 5.6 seconds
and in the old server it consumes 25 seconds.
> > Correct me if am
> > >> > That's not what it looks like based on the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
> > >> > It looks like run time dropped from two seconds to half a second.
> > >>
> > >> > It seems as though you either have a network delay delivering the
> > >> > results,
> > >> > or your application is slow to read
In response to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> >> > That's not what it looks like based on the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
> >> > It looks like run time dropped from two seconds to half a second.
> >>
> >> > It seems as though you either have a network delay delivering the
> >> > results,
> >> > or your appli
>> > That's not what it looks like based on the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
>> > It looks like run time dropped from two seconds to half a second.
>>
>> > It seems as though you either have a network delay delivering the results,
>> > or your application is slow to read them.
>>
>> > Exactly how are
In response to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > That's not what it looks like based on the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
> > It looks like run time dropped from two seconds to half a second.
>
> > It seems as though you either have a network delay delivering the results,
> > or your application is slow to read
> That's not what it looks like based on the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
> It looks like run time dropped from two seconds to half a second.
> It seems as though you either have a network delay delivering the results,
> or your application is slow to read them.
> Exactly how are you arriving at thos
D]>
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: viernes 21 de septiembre de 2007, 14:30:45
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
I'm doing several tests.
Right now I did a VACUUM FULL ANALYZE in both servers.
In the old one vacuum runs for about 354 seconds and in the new one 59 seconds.
The
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:30 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> This is the plan for the old server:
> Hash Join (cost=449.55..8879.24 rows=136316 width=904) (actual
> time=50.734..1632.491 rows=136316 loops=1)
. . .
> Total runtime: 2022.293 ms
> And this
ECTED]>
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: miércoles 19 de septiembre de 2007, 14:38:13
Asunto: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
Hi all.
Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz, SATA
Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4 (previously a 8.1.9).
I hav
ROTECTED]>
Para: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: jueves 20 de septiembre de 2007, 9:31:36
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hola Beto.
> I have no idea where to look for that configuration or settings.
In postgreSQL, the main settings are
they needed it. They do not seem to need to do this
for me.
>
> Regards
> Agustin
>
>
> - Mensaje original
> De: Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Enviado: jueves 20 de septiembre d
De: Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: jueves 20 de septiembre de 2007, 7:53:05
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> max_stack_depth = 7MB #in the old
On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is my dmesg file, I see there are some errors but I don't know how to
> manage!!!
nothing too horrible. Just wanted to make sure you weren't getting
lots of bad sectors or timeouts.
Nothing too bad looking there.
> What do you me
aje original
De: Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: miércoles 19 de septiembre de 2007, 16:41:45
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CPU Usage
On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTE
On 9/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> No, changing to fsync off didn't improve performance at all.
>
> Settings
> work_mem = 64MB
> max_stack_depth = 7MB #in the old server is 8MB but if I set in here give me
> the ulimit error
> max_fsm_pages = 204800
> effective_cache_siz
en the query is finishing (the first 3 minutes there are some tips of 11 to
16%).
- Mensaje original
De: Mark Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Enviado: miércoles 19 de septiembre de 2007, 15:03:06
Asunto: Re: [PERFORM] Low CP
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 10:38 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all.
> Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2
> GHz, SATA Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4
> (previously a 8.1.9).
> I have other similar server with an IDE disk, Red Hat EL 4 and
> Po
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz, SATA
> Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4 (previously a 8.1.9).
> I have other similar server with an IDE disk, Red Hat EL 4 and PostgreSQL
> 8.2.3
>
> I have almost the same po
Hi all.
Recently I have installed a brand new server with a Pentium IV 3.2 GHz, SATA
Disk, 2GB of Ram in Debian 4.0r1 with PostgreSQL 8.2.4 (previously a 8.1.9).
I have other similar server with an IDE disk, Red Hat EL 4 and PostgreSQL 8.2.3
I have almost the same postgresql.conf in both servers,
26 matches
Mail list logo
