Message-ID: <4E933F4B.2080808@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:54:03 -0300
From: alexandre - aldeia digital <adaldeia@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load
References: <4E92F294.9010405@gmail.com> <4E92FB87.1030703@peak6.com>
	<4E932BFC.7070007@gmail.com>
	<4E92E9340200002500041CD5@gw.wicourts.gov>
In-Reply-To: <4E92E9340200002500041CD5@gw.wicourts.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Em 10-10-2011 14:46, Kevin Grittner escreveu:
> alexandre - aldeia digital<adaldeia@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Notice that we have no idle % in cpu column.
>
> So they're making full use of all the CPUs they paid for.  That in
> itself isn't a problem.  Unfortunately you haven't given us nearly
> enough information to know whether there is indeed a problem, or if
> so, what.  What was throughput before?  What is it now?  How has
> latency been affected?  And all those unanswered questions from my
> first email....
>
> The problem *might* be something along the lines of most of the
> discussion on the thread.  It might not be.  I just don't know yet,
> myself.

 From the point of view of the client, the question is simple: until the 
last friday (with 16 GB of RAM), the load average of server rarely 
surpasses 4. Nothing change in normal database use.

Tonight, we will remove the extra memory. :/

Best regards.