From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Wei Weng <wweng@kencast.com>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: concurrent connections is worse than serialization?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:48:31 -0400
Message-ID: <9256.1029343711@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1029338971.21470.9.camel@Monet>
References: <1029271170.16828.7.camel@Monet>
<200208141018.38875.dev@archonet.com>
<1029334827.21470.2.camel@Monet>
<200208141549.57646.dev@archonet.com>
<1029338971.21470.9.camel@Monet>
Wei Weng <wweng@kencast.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 10:49, Richard Huxton wrote:
>> If it's not CPU, is the system going into swap or are you seeing a
>> lot of disk activity?
> I did hear a lot of disk noise when I ran the test. How do I tell if the
> "system is going into swap"?
Try running "vmstat 1" while doing the test. If the "swap" columns show
any activity then you're swapping. Watching free memory with "top" may
also be insightful.
I tend to agree with what I think Richard suspects: you haven't got
enough RAM for thirty concurrent server processes, and so the system is
wasting a lot of time swapping processes to disk. What are the hardware
parameters, anyway?
regards, tom lane
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, wweng@kencast.com, dev@archonet.com
Subject: Re: concurrent connections is worse than serialization?
In-Reply-To: <9256.1029343711@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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