Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:37:58 -0500 From: Alan Cox <alan.l.cox@gmail.com> To: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu>, "Polyack, Steve" <Steve.Polyack@intermedix.com> Subject: Re: vmdaemon CPU usage and poor performance in 10.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <CAJUyCcMSNuQBx2AfwyOJ%2BOOgr_ZqpXyX8U=579mDy6sLKBOO0Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <op.xkmk7cbnkndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> References: <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098846B4@exchange03.epbs.com> <20140813152522.GI9400@home.opsec.eu> <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098847AF@exchange03.epbs.com> <op.xkmk7cbnkndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:42:37 +0200, Polyack, Steve < > Steve.Polyack@intermedix.com> 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. > > The issues discussed in Kostik's report have nothing to do with the page daemon or the problem that started this thread. 10.0 had a regression in page daemon operation that I fixed in r265945. Alanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJUyCcMSNuQBx2AfwyOJ%2BOOgr_ZqpXyX8U=579mDy6sLKBOO0Q>