Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9B7632DAB for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:21:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32738-08 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:21:35 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65560632C8D for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:21:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n2DHLU9V020837 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:21:31 GMT MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=windows-1252 Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) id <0KGG00I00EYV7U00@mail-amer.sun.com> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:21:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from Macintosh-8.local ([unknown] [129.150.33.46]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-5.01 64bit (built Feb 19 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0KGG004W8G7GRZ70@mail-amer.sun.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:21:22 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:21:15 -0400 From: "Jignesh K. Shah" Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 In-reply-to: To: Scott Carey Cc: Kevin Grittner , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Message-id: <49BA960B.8040001@sun.com> References: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200903/167 X-Sequence-Number: 33089 Scott Carey wrote: > On 3/13/09 8:55 AM, "Kevin Grittner" wrote: > > >>> "Jignesh K. Shah" wrote: > > usr sys wt idl sze > > 38 11 0 50 64 > > The fact that you're maxing out at 50% CPU utilization has me > wondering -- are there really 64 CPUs here, or are there 32 CPUs with > "hyperthreading" technology (or something conceptually similar)? > > -Kevin > > Its a sun T1000 or T2000 type box, which are 4 threads per processor > core IIRC. Its in his first post: > > “ > UltraSPARC T2 based 1 socket (64 threads) and 2 socket (128 threads) > servers that Sun sells. > “ > > These processors use an in-order execution engine and fill the bubbles > in the pipelines with SMT (the non-marketing name for hyperthreading). > They are rather efficient at it though, moreso than Intel’s first stab > at it. And Intel’s next generation chips hitting the streets in > servers in less than a month, have it again. This are UltraSPARC T2 Plus which is 8 threads per core(ala CMT for us) .. Though the CPU% reported by vmstat is more based on "scheduled in execution" rather than what is executed by "computing engine" of the the core.. So unless you have scheduled in execution 100% on the thread, it wont be executing .. So if you want to read mpstat right, you may not be executing everything that is shown as executing but you are definitely NOT going to execute anything that is not shown as executing.. My goal is to reach a level where we can show PostgreSQL can effectively get to 100% CPU in say vmstat,mpstat first... -Jignesh -- Jignesh Shah http://blogs.sun.com/jkshah The New Sun Microsystems,Inc http://sun.com/postgresql