From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: CAJ CAJ <pguser@gmail.com>
Cc: Ralph Mason <ralph.mason@telogis.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance Woes
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 17:42:19 -0700
Message-ID: <1178757739.24902.78.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4642677F.80209@commandprompt.com>
References: <5132236932388612597@unknownmsgid>
<467669b30705091726j31fce52fp2f49649be675d811@mail.gmail.com>
<4642677F.80209@commandprompt.com>
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 17:29 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > 2007-05-09 03:07:50.083 GMT 1146975740: LOCATION: BasicOpenFile,
> > fd.c:471
> >
> > 2007-05-09 03:07:50.091 GMT 0: LOG: 00000: duration: 12.362 ms
> >
> > 2007-05-09 03:07:50.091 GMT 0: LOCATION: exec_simple_query,
> > postgres.c:1090
> >
> >
> >
> > So we decreased the max_files_per_process to 800. This took care
> > of the error **BUT** about quadrupled the IO wait that is happening
> > on the machine. It went from a peek of about 50% to peeks of over
> > 200% (4 processor machines, 4 gigs ram, raid). The load on the
> > machine remained constant.
> >
>
> Sounds to me like you just need to up the total amount of open files
> allowed by the operating system.
It looks more like the opposite, here's the docs for
max_files_per_process:
"Sets the maximum number of simultaneously open files allowed to each
server subprocess. The default is one thousand files. If the kernel is
enforcing a safe per-process limit, you don't need to worry about this
setting. But on some platforms (notably, most BSD systems), the kernel
will allow individual processes to open many more files than the system
can really support when a large number of processes all try to open that
many files. If you find yourself seeing "Too many open files" failures,
try reducing this setting. This parameter can only be set at server
start."
To me, that means that his machine is allowing the new FD to be created,
but then can't really support that many so it gives an error.
Ralph, how many connections do you have open at once? It seems like the
machine perhaps just can't handle that many FDs in all of those
processes at once.
That is a lot of tables. Maybe a different OS will handle it better?
Maybe there's some way that you can use fewer connections and then the
OS could still handle it?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql@j-davis.com, jd@commandprompt.com, pguser@gmail.com, ralph.mason@telogis.com
Subject: Re: Performance Woes
In-Reply-To: <1178757739.24902.78.camel@dogma.v10.wvs>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox