Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TqYy3-0007hs-9q for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:47:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TqYy1-0007dw-W8 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:47:30 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TqYy1-0007dq-1C for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:47:29 +0000 Received: from www.ruo3.org ([87.194.171.29] helo=chocolate.ruo3.org) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TqYxx-00005Z-HC for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:47:28 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (chocolate.ruo3.org [127.0.0.1]) by chocolate.ruo3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163EA560A54; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:47:23 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <50E4D51A.5060304@richardneill.org> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:47:22 +0000 From: Richard Neill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sthomas@optionshouse.com CC: "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Two Necessary Kernel Tweaks for Linux Systems References: <50E4AAB1.9040902@optionshouse.com> In-Reply-To: <50E4AAB1.9040902@optionshouse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Dear Shaun, Thanks for that - it's really interesting to know. On 02/01/13 21:46, Shaun Thomas wrote: > Hey everyone! > > After much testing and hair-pulling, we've confirmed two kernel > settings that should always be modified in production Linux systems. > Especially new ones with the completely fair scheduler (CFS) as > opposed to the O(1) scheduler. Does it apply to all types of production system, or just to certain workloads? For example, what happens when there are only one or two concurrent processes? (i.e. there are always several more CPU cores than there are actual connections). > * sched_autogroup_enabled > > This is a relatively new patch which Linus lauded back in late 2010. > It basically groups tasks by TTY so perceived responsiveness is > improved. But on server systems, large daemons like PostgreSQL are > going to be launched from the same pseudo-TTY, and be effectively > choked out of CPU cycles in favor of less important tasks. I've got several production servers using Postgres: I'd like to squeeze a bit more performance out of them, but in all cases, one (sometimes two) CPU cores are (sometimes) maxed out, but there are always several cores permanently idling. So does this apply here? Thanks for your advice, Richard -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance