Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26156501AB for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:20:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08415-08 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:20:07 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from easy2.in-chemnitz.de (easy2.in-chemnitz.de [88.198.17.232]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9FAE65017A for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:20:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by easy2.in-chemnitz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91731470013 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:20:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from easy2.in-chemnitz.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (easy.in-chemnitz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57LbmbX12SBH for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:20:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by easy2.in-chemnitz.de (Postfix, from userid 1013) id 8171B470012; Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:20:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:20:04 +0100 From: Tino Schwarze To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: NUMA architecture and PostgreSQL Message-ID: <20081127092004.GC7442@easy2.in-chemnitz.de> References: <3a0028490811260543x74d02719w775a457999cfc74@mail.gmail.com> <492D5C87.5090505@usit.uio.no> <3a0028490811260700w6e8d9d86o24effbe0bea2bddb@mail.gmail.com> <3a0028490811260921l5d6aac06v54dca32aae672b97@mail.gmail.com> <492DA95D.3010303@zeut.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200811/160 X-Sequence-Number: 30814 On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 06:13:41PM -0700, Fabricio wrote: > I have an IBM server with NUMA architecture, two nodes with 4 CPU quad > core and 64 GB of RAM each, and PostgrSQL 8.3.5. Is there any way to > avoid the performance degradation when the load goes up and used the > two nodes? I understand this performance degradation is due to the > higher latency than a cpu access a remote memory that the local > memory. But there are ways to improve this? > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2005-04/msg01187.php > > Any suggestions? Greetings... Thanks... I suppose this has nothing to do with PostgreSQL but needs some operating system level tuning. Maybe there is a way to bind the postgres processes to one node's CPUs... What operating system are you using? I know that there are ways to bind processes to a CPU on Linux, I'm not sure how to assign multiple processes to multiple CPUs. The Linux scheduler should know about NUMA architectures though, there not that new any more. Tino. -- "What we nourish flourishes." - "Was wir nähren erblüht." www.lichtkreis-chemnitz.de www.craniosacralzentrum.de