Re: Amazon EC2 CPU Utilization

From: Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mike Bresnahan <mike(dot)bresnahan(at)bestbuy(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Amazon EC2 CPU Utilization
Date: 2010-01-28 01:22:52
Message-ID: dd92004a1001271722q5f62124g21ec01c0228bdab8@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-general

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Mike Bresnahan
<mike(dot)bresnahan(at)bestbuy(dot)com>wrote:

> Greg Smith <greg <at> 2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Could you try this again with "top -c", which will label these
> > postmaster processes usefully, and include the pgbench client itself in
> > what you post? It's hard to sort out what's going on in these
> > situations without that style of breakdown.
>
> As a further experiment, I ran 8 pgbench processes in parallel. The result
> is
> about the same.
>
> Let's start from the beginning. Have you tuned your postgresql.conf file?
What do you have shared_buffers set to? That would have the biggest effect
on a test like this.

> top - 18:34:15 up 17 min, 2 users, load average: 0.39, 0.40, 0.36
> Tasks: 217 total, 8 running, 209 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> Cpu(s): 22.2%us, 8.9%sy, 0.0%ni, 68.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
> 0.3%st
> Mem: 7358492k total, 1611148k used, 5747344k free, 11416k buffers
> Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 1248408k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
>
>
> 1506 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m S 29.4 1.9 0:09.27 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] idle
>
> 1524 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m R 29.4 1.9 0:05.13 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] idle
>
> 1509 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m R 27.1 1.9 0:08.58 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] SELECT
>
> 1521 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m R 26.4 1.9 0:05.77 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] SELECT
>
> 1512 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m S 26.1 1.9 0:07.62 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] idle
>
> 1520 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m R 25.8 1.9 0:05.31 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] idle
>
> 1515 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m S 23.8 1.9 0:06.94 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] SELECT
>
> 1527 postgres 20 0 197m 134m 132m S 21.8 1.9 0:04.46 postgres:
> postgres
> postgres [local] SELECT
>
> 1517 postgres 20 0 49808 2012 1544 R 5.3 0.0 0:01.02 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1507 postgres 20 0 49808 2012 1544 R 4.6 0.0 0:01.70 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1510 postgres 20 0 49808 2008 1544 S 4.3 0.0 0:01.32 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1525 postgres 20 0 49808 2012 1544 S 4.3 0.0 0:00.79 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1516 postgres 20 0 49808 2016 1544 S 4.0 0.0 0:01.00 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1504 postgres 20 0 49808 2012 1544 R 3.3 0.0 0:01.81 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1513 postgres 20 0 49808 2016 1544 S 3.0 0.0 0:01.07 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1522 postgres 20 0 49808 2012 1544 S 3.0 0.0 0:00.86 pgbench -S -c
> 1 -T
> 30
>
> 1209 postgres 20 0 63148 1476 476 S 0.3 0.0 0:00.11 postgres:
> stats
> collector process
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

--
--
Jim Mlodgenski
EnterpriseDB (http://www.enterprisedb.com)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message George 2010-01-28 04:13:15 BUG #5298: emedded SQL in C to get the record type from plpgsql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-27 23:59:10 Re: problem with segmentation fault error

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2010-01-28 04:01:37 Re: How much work is it to add/drop columns, really?
Previous Message Yan Cheng Cheok 2010-01-28 01:15:58 Re: Problem after installing triggering function