Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: beta testing version

From: "Magnus Naeslund\(f\)" <mag(at)fbab(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Date: 2000-11-29 12:08:00
Message-ID: 01bc01c059fd$04cbb1b0$020a0a0a@totalmef (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I don't have the same luck, sorry to say!

I am running Mandrake linux with OpenWall patched 2.2.17 kernel, dual p3
550Mhz, 1gb memory.
It's a really busy webserver that constantly is running with 10 in load.
Sometime it spikes to ~40-50 in load (the most we had was 114(!)).
I am running postgresql 7.0.2 (from the Mandrake rpm's).

One problem i have is that in one database we rapidly insert/delete in some
tables, and to maintain a good performance on that db, i have to run a
vacuum every hour(!).
I think that db has excessive indexes all over the place (if that could have
anything to do with it?).

Another other problem that is more severe is that the database "crashes"
(read: stops working), if i run psql and do a select it says
"001129.07:04:15.688 [25474] FATAL 1:  Memory exhausted in AllocSetAlloc()"
and fails.
I have a cron script that watches postgres, and restarts it if it cant get a
select right.
It fails this way maybe once a day or two days.
I've searched the mailinglist archives for this problem, but it allways
seems that my problem doesn't fit the descriptions of the other ppl's
problem generating this error message.

I have not found the right time to upgrade to 7.0.3 yet, and i don't know if
that would solve anything.

Another problem i have is that i get "001128.12:58:01.248 [23444] FATAL 1:
Socket command type  unknown" in my logs. I don't know if i get that from
the unix odbc driver, the remote windows odbc driver, or in unix standard db
connections.

I get "pq_recvbuf: unexpected EOF on client connection" alot too, but that i
think only indicates that the socket was closed in a not-so-nice way, and
that it is no "real" error.
It seems that the psql windows odbc driver is generating this.

The postmaster is running with these parameters: "-N 512 -B 1024 -i -o -S
4096"

But as a happy note i can tell you that we have a Linux box here (pentium
100, kernel 2.0.3x) that has near 1000 days uptime, and runs postgres 6.5.x.
It has never failed, not even a single time :)

Magnus Naeslund

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund
 PGP Key: http://www.genline.nu/mag_pgp.txt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)venux(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 19:12
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version


> This is one of the not-so-stomped boxes running PostgreSQL -- I've never
> restarted PostgreSQL on it since it was installed.
>
> 12:03pm  up 122 days,  7:54,  1 user,  load average: 0.08, 0.11, 0.09
>
> I had some index corruption problems in 6.5.3 but since 7.0.X I haven't
> heard so much as a peep from any PostgreSQL backend. It's superbly stable
on
> all my machines..
>
> Damn good work guys.
>
> -Mitch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
> To: "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
> Cc: "xuyifeng" <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn>; <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>;
> "Don Baccus" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
>
>
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >
> > > xuyifeng wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I just noticed this conversation so I have not followed all of it,
> > > but you seem to have strange priorities
> > >
> > > > I just want PG can be improved quickly, for me crash recover is very
> urgent problem,
> > >
> > > Crash avoidance is usually much more urgent, at least on production
> > > servers.
> >
> > Good call, but I kinda jumped to the conclusion that since PgSQL itself
> > isn't that crash prone, its his OS or his hardware that was the problem
:0
> >
> >
> >
>
>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: mlwDate: 2000-11-29 12:25:46
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: 8192 BLCKSZ ?]
Previous:From: Magnus Naeslund(f)Date: 2000-11-29 11:07:45
Subject: Re: Please advise features in 7.1 (SUMMARY)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group