| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Samuel Gendler <sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load |
| Date: | 2011-10-11 02:19:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpaOOu_ADrD7h9Cn_EazPrz4=QQj+jTePyHGEvt7BjJi3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Samuel Gendler
<sgendler(at)ideasculptor(dot)com> wrote:
> The original question doesn't actually say that performance has gone down,
> only that cpu utilization has gone up. Presumably, with lots more RAM, it is
> blocking on I/O a lot less, so it isn't necessarily surprising that CPU
> utilization has gone up. The only problem would be if db performance has
> gotten worse. Maybe I missed a message where that was covered? I don't see
> it in the original query to the list.
Load average (which is presumably the metric in question) includes
both processes using the CPU and processes waiting for I/O.
So it *would* be strange for load average to go up like that, if
database configuration remains the same (ie: equal query plans)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-10-11 06:42:42 | Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load |
| Previous Message | Samuel Gendler | 2011-10-10 22:02:16 | Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load |