Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A8DB5DBE4 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:36:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36067-06 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:36:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:15:05.388543 by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2 Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A099B5DBDE for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:36:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RDZSD-0001EP-CM for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:20:57 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:20:57 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:20:57 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org From: Ivan Voras Subject: Re: Adding more memory = hugh cpu load Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:20:45 +0200 Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <4E92F294.9010405@gmail.com> <4E92FB87.1030703@peak6.com> <4E932BFC.7070007@gmail.com> <4E92E9340200002500041CD5@gw.wicourts.gov> <4E933F4B.2080808@gmail.com> <4E9303A00200002500041CFE@gw.wicourts.gov> <4E9356E5.6000308@gmail.com> <4E9314A50200002500041D12@gw.wicourts.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig3B8836BA75D0E1B040BBCF6A" X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111004 Thunderbird/7.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.404 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201110/97 X-Sequence-Number: 45319 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig3B8836BA75D0E1B040BBCF6A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/10/2011 00:02, Samuel Gendler wrote: > The original question doesn't actually say that performance has gone do= wn, > only that cpu utilization has gone up. Presumably, with lots more RAM, = it is > blocking on I/O a lot less, so it isn't necessarily surprising that CPU= > utilization has gone up. =20 It's Linux - it counts IO wait in the load average. Again there are too little details to be sure of anything, but it is possible that the IO rate didn't go down. --------------enig3B8836BA75D0E1B040BBCF6A Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6UGH0ACgkQldnAQVacBcjRFQCfbWjkb5t5C9VCWaVaJc2DQASr oLEAn2fsrkkkKCxWNn5/0ZGMEmsspLQk =fle0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig3B8836BA75D0E1B040BBCF6A--