| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
| Date: | 2010-04-20 18:20:18 |
| Message-ID: | w2gdcc563d11004201120h88b16774ve81b22f60a875c9c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
>> Howdy all,
>>
>> I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9.
>> 64bit OS. No users currently.
>
> What's your IO subsystem look like? What did vmstat actually say?
Note that on a 48 core machine, if vmstat shows 2% wait and 98% idle
then you'd be 100% io bound, because it's % of total CPU. iostat -x
10 will give a better view of how hard your disks are working, and if
they're the issue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kerr | 2010-04-20 18:20:30 | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
| Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2010-04-20 18:19:52 | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |