From: | Rémy Beaumont <remyb(at)medrium(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: High load and iowait but no disk access |
Date: | 2005-08-30 16:19:30 |
Message-ID: | 2fa5224f3e5af53598e33d115a2af980@medrium.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 30-Aug-05, at 12:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9my_Beaumont?= <remyb(at)medrium(dot)com> writes:
>> The stats of the NetApp do confirm that it is sitting idle.
>
> Really?
>
>> CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Total Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s
>> Cache Cache CP CP Disk DAFS FCP iSCSI FCP kB/s
>> in out read write read write
>> age hit time ty util in out
>> 2% 0 0 0 139 0 0 2788 0 0 0
>> 3 96% 0% - 15% 0 139 0 3 2277
>> 2% 0 0 0 144 0 0 2504 0 0 0
>> 3 96% 0% - 18% 0 144 0 3 2150
>> 2% 0 0 0 130 0 0 2212 0 0 0
>> 3 96% 0% - 13% 0 130 0 3 1879
>> 3% 0 0 0 169 0 0 2937 80 0 0
>> 3 96% 0% - 13% 0 169 0 4 2718
>> 2% 0 0 0 139 0 0 2448 0 0 0
>> 3 96% 0% - 12% 0 139 0 3 2096
>
> I know zip about NetApps, but doesn't the 8th column indicate pretty
> steady disk reads?
Yes, but they are very low.
At 15% usage, it's pretty much sitting idle if you consider that the OS
reports that one of the processor is spending more then 80% of it's
time in IOwait.
Rémy
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Stone | 2005-08-30 16:25:25 | Re: High load and iowait but no disk access |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-30 16:15:51 | Re: High load and iowait but no disk access |