Re: Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Naytro Naytro <naytro(at)googlemail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance issue after upgrading from 9.4 to 9.6
Date: 2017-03-09 19:19:49
Message-ID: 20170309191949.syb4dzp6twncb3sd@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2017-03-09 13:47:35 +0100, Naytro Naytro wrote:
> We are having some performance issues after we upgraded to newest
> version of PostgreSQL, before it everything was fast and smooth.
>
> Upgrade was done by pg_upgrade from 9.4 directly do 9.6.1. Now we
> upgraded to 9.6.2 with no improvement.
>
> Some information about our setup: Freebsd, Solaris (SmartOS), simple
> master-slave using streaming replication.

Which node is on which of those, and where is the high load?

> Problem:
> Very high system CPU when master is streaming replication data, CPU
> goes up to 77%. Only one process is generating this load, it's a
> postgresql startup process. When I attached a truss to this process I
> saw a lot o read calls with almost the same number of errors (EAGAIN).

Hm. Just to clarify: The load is on the *receiving* side, in the startup
process? Because the load doesn't quite look that way...

> read(6,0x7fffffffa0c7,1) ERR#35 'Resource temporarily unavailable'
>
> Descriptor 6 is a pipe

That's presumably a latches internal pipe. Could you redo that
truss/strace with timestamps attached? Does truss show signals
received? The above profile would e.g. make a lot more sense if not. Is
the wal receiver sending signals?

> Read call try to read one byte over and over, I looked up to source
> code and I think this file is responsible for this behavior
> src/backend/storage/ipc/latch.c. There was no such file in 9.4.

It was "just" moved (and expanded), used to be at
src/backend/port/unix_latch.c.

There normally shouldn't be that much "latch traffic" in the startup
process, we'd expect to block from within WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable().

Hm. Any chance you've configured a recovery_min_apply_delay? Although
I'd expect more timestamp calls in that case.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-09 19:24:30 tzdata2017a breaks timestamptz regression test
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-03-09 19:19:39 Re: on_dsm_detach() callback and parallel tuplesort BufFile resource management