Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C227591C6 for ; Thu, 24 May 2012 14:00:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from corp.tradeindia.com ([61.16.154.82] helo=zmta01.trade-india-local.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SXbOT-0004om-Py for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 17:00:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zmta01.trade-india-local.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AB744D44E1; Thu, 24 May 2012 22:29:55 +0530 (IST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmta01.trade-india-local.com Received: from zmta01.trade-india-local.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmta01.trade-india-local.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YZTicZRNHcXQ; Thu, 24 May 2012 22:29:55 +0530 (IST) Received: from zmbox01.trade-india-local.com (zmbox01.trade-india-local.com [192.168.1.111]) by zmta01.trade-india-local.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186C344D447A; Thu, 24 May 2012 22:29:55 +0530 (IST) Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 22:29:55 +0530 (IST) From: "Rajesh Kumar. Mallah" To: Stephen Frost Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: <8120287.465321337878795023.JavaMail.root@zmbox01.trade-india-local.com> In-Reply-To: <20120524155737.GP1267@tamriel.snowman.net> Subject: Re: High load average in 64-core server , no I/O wait and CPU is idle MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.114] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.1_GA_1816.DEBIAN4.0 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/6.0.1_GA_1816.DEBIAN4.0) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Archive-Number: 201205/126 X-Sequence-Number: 46950 ----- "Stephen Frost" wrote: | From: "Stephen Frost" | To: "Rajesh Kumar. Mallah" | Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org | Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:27:37 PM | Subject: Re: [PERFORM] High load average in 64-core server , no I/O wait and CPU is idle | | Rajesh, | | * Rajesh Kumar. Mallah (mallah@tradeindia.com) wrote: | > We are puzzled why the CPU and DISK I/O system are not being | utilized | > fully and would seek lists' wisdom on that. | | What OS is this? What kernel version? Dear Frost , We are running linux with kernel 3.2.X (which has the lseek improvements) | | > just a thought, will it be a good idea to partition the host | hardware | > to 4 equal virtual environments , ie 1 for master (r/w) and 3 | slaves r/o | > and distribute the r/o load on the 3 slaves ? | | Actually, it might help with 9.1, if you're really running into some | scalability issues in our locking area.. You might review this: | | http://rhaas.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-i-say-32-cores-how-about-64.html | | That's a pretty contrived test case, but I suppose it's possible your | case is actually close enough to be getting affected also.. Thanks for the reference , even i thought so (LockManager) , but we are actually also running out db max connections (also) ( which is currently at 600) , when that happens something at the beginning of the application stack also gets dysfunctional and it changes the very input to the system. ( think of negative feedback systems ) It is sort of complicated but i will definitely update list , when i get to the point of putting the blame on DB :-) . Regds Mallah. | | Thanks, | | Stephen