From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 15 08:43:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEAD0112 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD1602AE2 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:43:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XID72-0002iV-63; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:43:53 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "Kurt Jaeger" , "Polyack, Steve" Subject: Re: vmdaemon CPU usage and poor performance in 10.0-RELEASE References: <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098846B4@exchange03.epbs.com> <20140813152522.GI9400@home.opsec.eu> <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098847AF@exchange03.epbs.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:43:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098847AF@exchange03.epbs.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.17 (Win32) X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 398f5522cb258ce43cb679602f8cfe8b62a256d1 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 X-Scan-Signature: ba572e8a3bde05b4b19613c12a9e49fc Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:43:59 -0000 On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:42:37 +0200, Polyack, Steve wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kurt Jaeger [mailto:lists@opsec.eu] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:25 AM >> >> Hi! >> >> > We have a handful of database servers running FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE >> > and PostgreSQL 9.3.4. The servers have 128GB or 256GB of RAM. >> >> Are you aware of the recent work on that topic ? >> >> https://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2014-04-2014- >> 06.html#PostgreSQL-Performance-Improvements >> >> Maybe kib@ knows more about this ? >> > > I've recently read over this and some other posts, but they all seem to > center around poor postgres performance. In our case at least, some > light to medium usage of postgres generally makes the entire system > unusable. > > The patches & documents linked there also all seem to be for -CURRENT, > which we aren't running. We're not too keen on the idea of using > CURRENT in production, either. We're planning on testing 10-STABLE, but > I was just hoping to gain some insight into what the problem may be and > whether recent commits to vmdaemon code in the -STABLE tree may have a > positive effect on what we've seen. > > Steve It looks like a fix mentioned in part 2.1 in the pdf (https://www.kib.kiev.ua/kib/pgsql_perf_v2.0.pdf, from the status report) was only just committed to 11-CURRENT. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/270011 I guess it is advisable to stay on pgsql 9.2.x until these improvements are MFC'ed to 10-STABLE. Regards, Ronald.