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

Re: Postgres filling up hard drive with swap files

From: Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com>
To: Joe Lester <joe_lester(at)sweetwater(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl
Subject: Re: Postgres filling up hard drive with swap files
Date: 2004-08-20 19:16:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
Joe Lester <joe_lester(at)sweetwater(dot)com> wrote:
> > How many Postgres processes are running?
> 146 right now. Most of them are idle at any given point in time.

That's a lot for a machine with only 512M of RAM.

> > I'm wondering, however, if you have a connection leak instead.  i.e.
> > is it possible that your client application is opening a whole bunch
> > of connections and never closing them?
> No. The clients open only one connection (and hang onto it for dear 
> life  :-).

If these clients aren't utilizing the database, it might be worthwhile
to have them disconnect after a period of inactivity, and reconnect when
things get busy again.

> > You did show that you have
> > a max # of connection of 200.  That's pretty high, unless you've got
> > a lot of RAM in that machine.
> I have 512 MB of RAM in the machine.

That's not a lot of RAM.  I have 512M in a machine that's only designed
to handle 20 connections (although that's MS Windows + MSSQL ... but
you get the idea ... we're talking a factor of 10 here)

> The server is performing 
> wonderfully. It's just that the swap files keep sprouting like weeds.

I would expect that if you ignore it for a while, eventually it will
reach an equalibrium.  (where it's not increasing the amount of swap in
use) but it will always hurt performance any time is has to page in or

> > How much memory is actually in use by Postgres processes?  (The amount 
> > of
> > swap in use is unimportant to the Postgres folks, it's an OS thing)
> This is where I could use some pointers. The following line is a top 
> entry for a single postgres process. Hope that helps.
> 14235 postgres     0.0%  0:01.36   1     9    33   880K  16.9M  9.62M  60.0M

Please don't wrap machine-generated output ... it makes it VERY difficult
to understand.

I'll defer this answer to Jeff, as he seems to know quite a bit more about
how Darwin manages memory than I do.

His recommendation to try pgpool was also good.

Bill Moran
Potential Technologies

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Joe LesterDate: 2004-08-20 19:18:43
Subject: Re: Postgres filling up hard drive with swap files
Previous:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2004-08-20 19:01:41
Subject: Re: 7.4.5 release

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group