Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "alexandre - aldeia digital" <adaldeia(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load
Date: 2011-10-10 17:46:44
Message-ID: 4E92E9340200002500041CD5@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Notice that we have no idle % in cpu column.

So they're making full use of all the CPUs they paid for. That in
itself isn't a problem. Unfortunately you haven't given us nearly
enough information to know whether there is indeed a problem, or if
so, what. What was throughput before? What is it now? How has
latency been affected? And all those unanswered questions from my
first email....

The problem *might* be something along the lines of most of the
discussion on the thread. It might not be. I just don't know yet,
myself.

> 14:26:47 up 2 days, 3:26, 4 users, load average: 48.61,
> 46.12, 40.47

This has me wondering again about your core count and your user
connections.

> My client wants to remove the extra memory... :/

Maybe we should identify the problem. It might be that a connection
pooler is the solution. On the other hand, if critical production
applications are suffering, it might make sense to take this out of
production and figure out a safer place to test things and sort this
out.

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message alexandre - aldeia digital 2011-10-10 18:54:03 Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load
Previous Message alexandre - aldeia digital 2011-10-10 17:31:40 Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load