From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 30 20:46:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0BE16A424 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:46:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from usleepless@gmail.com) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (zproxy.gmail.com [64.233.162.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4178043D69 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:46:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from usleepless@gmail.com) Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l8so568196nzf for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:14 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=iXhT96XeiTLAsLadpgMeqQFgb9vTVibasLsN+VpEMFEFnB9zevYk8R7uZVPK03ADYkQ/pBiTzIIL3kJW2z4vqBy61B6Gj+FoXV+54jhts/CbtfxWGFgd3EsvEu/Wj03myXiyhzJlXjjYbFqM8TlxCequJzKqkHYyRClKufF14kM= Received: by 10.36.20.13 with SMTP id 13mr304655nzt; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.154.7 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:46:14 +0200 From: usleepless@gmail.com To: Miguel In-Reply-To: <442C3B17.4060308@123.com.sv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <442B2FC6.9040001@123.com.sv> <20060330011834.GA84658@xor.obsecurity.org> <442BF0BB.8010504@123.com.sv> <20060330150136.GA12982@xor.obsecurity.org> <442C3B17.4060308@123.com.sv> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: terrible performance in 6.1beta4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:46:25 -0000 Miguel, > > > Yes, it is a dump of a single table. i want to tranfer the data from one= =20 > server to another, and this is one of the biggest table. ok, but gentoo performs the same task ok, so it is not a postgresql problem= . you have not confirmed wether the gentoo-box is running with the same pos= tgresql.conf. is it? if not, which are the differences? > attached is my config file, shared_buffers are 25% of total RAM i my experience, you should go much higher. if the server is not in product= ion yet, you might go as high as 75% ( assuming no other processes need th= ese kind of resources ). i am not familiar with the work_mem flag, it was = not there last time i tuned a postgresql. you might consider upping your wa= l-buffers, but i am not sure if they are used by copyin. > im guessing that this is a disk controlled bug or something, when i=20 > execute any query involving many rows, the server response is very low,= =20 > ssh, su, even copy or rename a file, cpu usage remains ~87% idle though ofcourse it might be hardware related: have you checked your diskperformanc= e? what is your throughput? how does this throughput compare with the gento= o box? regards, usleep > --- > Miguel > miguel >=20 >=20