Re: System load consideration before spawning parallel workers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: System load consideration before spawning parallel workers
Date: 2016-09-01 17:16:37
Message-ID: 28787.1472750197@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> As I just wrote in another message in this thread, I don't trust system
> load metrics very much as a gatekeeper. They are reasonable for
> long-term charting to discover trends, but there are numerous potential
> problems for using them for this kind of resource control thing.

As a note in support of that, sendmail has a "feature" to suppress service
if system load gets above X, which I have never found to do anything
except result in self-DOSing. The load spike might not have anything to
do with the service that is trying to un-spike things. Even if it does,
Peter is correct to note that the response delay is much too long to form
part of a useful feedback loop. It could be all right for scheduling
activities whose length is comparable to the load average measurement
interval, but not for short-term decisions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2016-09-01 17:20:00 Re: WAL consistency check facility
Previous Message Anderson Carniel 2016-09-01 17:12:39 What is the posix_memalign() equivalent for the PostgreSQL?