From: Tory M Blue <tmblue@gmail.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: oom_killer
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:08:00 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimog78KjkuRjsYBJA8uDeLw4ajFFA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikb_HK9vGbkO04imFxL9Awt0Wsnzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTinXiV8ODPP5SwOOwdR5Nstdk98pcw@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTimOwtSQ-bXSXYC=eM9huMGEH95icQ@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTi=OdNnQDtBbjmOdV0vWftxtt9gHoA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTi=d3aJ20GnRGO_3JXyju0mcqe65HA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTikMuHj=F7W8vzeDJMk3B3POH1sVdA@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTikb_HK9vGbkO04imFxL9Awt0Wsnzg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tory M Blue <tmblue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While I don't mind the occasional slap of reality. This configuration
>> has run for 4+ years. It's possible that as many other components each
>> fedora release is worse then the priors.
>
> How many of those 300 max connections do you generally use? If you've
> always used a handful, or you've used more but they weren't memory
> hungry then you've been lucky.
max of 45
> work_mem is how much memory postgresql can allocate PER sort or hash
> type operation. Each connection can do that more than once. A
> complex query can do it dozens of times. Can you see that going from
> 20 to 200 connections and increasing complexity can result in memory
> usage going from a few megabytes to something like 200 connections *
> 100Megabytes per sort * 3 sorts = 60Gigabytes.
>
>> The Os has changed 170 days ago from fc6 to f12, but the postgres
>> configuration has been the same, and umm no way it can operate, is so
>> black and white, especially when it has ran performed well with a
>> decent sized data set for over 4 years.
>
> Just because you've been walking around with a gun pointing at your
> head without it going off does not mean walking around with a gun
> pointing at your head is a good idea.
Yes that is what I gathered. It's good information and I'm always open
to a smack if I learn something, which in this case I did.
We were already working on moving to 64bit, but again the oom_killer
popping up without the system even attempting to use swap is what has
caused me some pause.
Thanks again
Tory
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: tmblue@gmail.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, klaussfreire@gmail.com
Subject: Re: oom_killer
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimog78KjkuRjsYBJA8uDeLw4ajFFA@mail.gmail.com>
* 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