Re: background writer being lazy?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Kevin Grittner
Тема Re: background writer being lazy?
Дата
Msg-id 4EB0069002000025000428F9@gw.wicourts.gov
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: background writer being lazy?  (Brian Fehrle <brianf@consistentstate.com>)
Список pgsql-admin
Brian Fehrle <brianf@consistentstate.com> wrote:

> PostgreSQL 8.4.1 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Please upgrade to the latest bug fix release of PostgreSQL:

http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning

To see what bug and security fixes you're missing, look at release
notes for 8.4.2 to 8.4.9 here:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/static/release.html

There have been improvements in your areas of concern in 9.0 and
9.1, so you might want to start planning a major release upgrade.
That's not as painful as it used to be, with pg_upgrade.

>   bgwriter_lru_maxpages   | 500

FWIW, we do set this to 1000.

>   max_connections | 2000

This is probably your biggest problem.  Unless you've got 1000 CPUs
on this box, you should use a connection pooler which is
transaction-oriented, limits the number of database connections, and
queues requests for a new transaction when all connections are in
use.  This will almost certainly improve throughput and limit
latency problems.  You do not need 2000 connections to support 2000
cnocurrent users; such a setting will make it harder to provide 2000
concurrent users with decent and consistent performance.

>   effective_cache_size   | 16GB

Given your other settings, this seems likely to be low.  I normally
add the cache space reported by the OS to the shared_buffers
setting.

>   shared_buffers | 16GB

This is probably at least twice what it should be.  If you are
having problems with backends writing too many buffers and problems
with clusters of I/O congestion, you might want to drop it to the
0.5 to 2.0 GB range.

>   wal_buffers                   | 8MB

Might as well go to 16MB.

>   work_mem                      | 64MB

Each of your connections can allocate this much space, potentially
several times, at the same moment.  Unless you really have a monster
machine, 64MB * 2000 connections is just asking for out of memory
failures at unpredictable peak load times.

> One main thing is trying to lower 'spikey' disk IO so that
> performance is more consistent at any given time.

The advice above should help with that.

-Kevin

В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Brian Fehrle
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: background writer being lazy?
Следующее
От: Brian Fehrle
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: background writer being lazy?