On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 23:45 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 20:39 +0200, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>> > On Sun, April 18, 2010 13:01, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > any comment is welcome...
>> Please can you re-run with -l and post me the file of times
> Erik has sent me details of a test run. My analysis of that is:
> I'm seeing the response time profile on the standby as
> 99% <110us
> 99.9% <639us
> 99.99% <615ms
> 0.052% (52 samples) are >5ms elapsed and account for 24 s, which is
> about 45% of elapsed time.
> Of the 52 samples >5ms, 50 of them are >100ms and 2 >1s.
> 99% of transactions happen in similar times between primary and standby,
> everything dragged down by rare but severe spikes.
> We're looking for something that would delay something that normally
> takes <0.1ms into something that takes >100ms, yet does eventually
> return. That looks like a severe resource contention issue.
Wow. Good detective work.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dan Langille||Date: 2010-04-23 15:40:37|
|Subject: PGCon 2010 - registered yet?|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-04-23 15:14:41|
|Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance|