Re: PG_DUMP very slow because of STDOUT ??

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Andras Fabian <Fabian(at)atrada(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG_DUMP very slow because of STDOUT ??
Date: 2010-07-14 03:32:37
Message-ID: AANLkTikHSIq3SAG6R2piD5mwYvNH760eSUkfJwzvRYyI@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>> And tomorrow I will see how my nightly backup runs with this setting.
>
> It sounds like it's time for a post to the Linux Kernel Mailing List,
> and/or a Launchpad bug against the Ubuntu kernel.
>
> Make sure to have your asbestos undewear on if posting to LKML ;-)

Note that I am testing a new 48 core machine with gobs of ram under
ubuntu 10.04, so I'll do some testing to see if I get the same kind of
issue, especially once I subscribe one of these machines to the slony
farm and get some action going on it to fill its buffers.

Note that the page posted earlier that described zone_reclaim_mode
said that when the memory is mostly used for file caching it's a good
idea to set it to 0. Even though they said that they were talking
about file servers, I'd assume that applies to pgsql as well, since
it's normal to use most of the extra memory as file system cache.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andras Fabian 2010-07-14 06:39:39 Re: PG_DUMP very slow because of STDOUT ??
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2010-07-14 03:10:37 Re: PG_DUMP very slow because of STDOUT ??