Could these locking issues be related to the other changes I made? I'm
really scared that this is related to choosing XFS, but I sure hope
not. How should I go about troubleshooting the problem queries?
They don't seem to be specific to a single table or single database.
My
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:04:11PM -0600, Dan Harris wrote:
These changes have definitely improved performance, but I am now
finding some trouble with UPDATE or DELETE queries hanging and
never releasing their locks. As this happens, other statements queue
up behind it.
Have you
Dan,
Do you mean you did RAID 1 + 0 (RAID 10) or RAID 0 + 1? Just a
clarification, since RAID 0 is still a single-point of failure even if
RAID1 is on top of RAID0.
How many users are connected when your update / delete queries are
hanging? Have you done an analyze verbose on those queries?
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My experience is that when this type of thing happens it is typically
specific queries that cause the problem. If you turn on statement
logging you can get the exact queries and debug from there.
Here are some things to look for:
Is it a large
On Aug 9, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My experience is that when this type of thing happens it is typically
specific queries that cause the problem. If you turn on statement
logging you can get the exact queries and debug from there.
Here
On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Steve Poe wrote:
Dan,
Do you mean you did RAID 1 + 0 (RAID 10) or RAID 0 + 1? Just a
clarification, since RAID 0 is still a single-point of failure even if
RAID1 is on top of RAID0.
Well, you tell me if I stated incorrectly. There are two raid
enclosures
Dan Harris wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Steve Poe wrote:
Dan,
Do you mean you did RAID 1 + 0 (RAID 10) or RAID 0 + 1? Just a
clarification, since RAID 0 is still a single-point of failure even if
RAID1 is on top of RAID0.
Well, you tell me if I stated incorrectly. There are two
On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:51 PM, John A Meinel wrote:
Dan Harris wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Steve Poe wrote:
Dan,
Do you mean you did RAID 1 + 0 (RAID 10) or RAID 0 + 1? Just a
clarification, since RAID 0 is still a single-point of failure
even if
RAID1 is on top of RAID0.
Well,
Dan Harris wrote:
On Aug 9, 2005, at 3:51 PM, John A Meinel wrote:
Dan Harris wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Steve Poe wrote:
Dan,
Do you mean you did RAID 1 + 0 (RAID 10) or RAID 0 + 1? Just a
clarification, since RAID 0 is still a single-point of failure even if
RAID1 is on top
