From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 1 22:30:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C7A16A4CE for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:30:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zaphod.nitro.dk (port324.ds1-khk.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.113.79]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312C643D2D for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 22:30:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: by zaphod.nitro.dk (Postfix, from userid 3000) id 0E743119C7; Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:30:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 23:30:30 +0100 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" To: Darcy Buskermolen Message-ID: <20041201223030.GI757@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <20041201105113.79348.qmail@web14102.mail.yahoo.com> <6174636A-43BC-11D9-ACAF-000A95C705DC@chittenden.org> <200412011423.27424.darcy@wavefire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412011423.27424.darcy@wavefire.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:49:37 +0000 cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Claus Guttesen Subject: Re: postgresql on FreeBSD 5.3 and high load X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 22:30:32 -0000 --ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2004.12.01 14:23:27 -0800, Darcy Buskermolen wrote: > On December 1, 2004 09:13 am, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > > Our postgresql-server hits the wall when we get many > > > hits on our web. The load-average reaches 70. It > > > serves 11 webservers. > > > > Have you looked to see if you're using spin locks or not? Search for > > "amd64 x86_64 spin lock" in PostgreSQL's archives. I think spin locks > > were disabled for amd64. When you're at a load of 70, look in > > pg_catalog.pg_locks to see if you have any ungranted locks. > > > > Also, is your application primarily read? You may want to investigate > > using pgpool as a way of reducing the overhead for connection startup. > > > > Another option is to use memcached and remove some queries from the > > database all together. -sc >=20 > Umm I'm not sure where the misscommunication is (it could be at my end), = but=20 > if I'm not mistalen a DELL 2850 is a dual Xeon EM64T box so all of the a= md64=20 > stuff is moot on this platform. EM64T is Intel's name for amd64 (with a few minor differences AFAIR), since it would be kind of embarrassing for Intel to really admit they had to copy AMD :-). --=20 Simon L. Nielsen --ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBrkYGh9pcDSc1mlERAmqEAKCdBHHQlvIE3eVGkup2Xby4o0JvgACfSqPo lSyyqlU1CFGHYDZqgunkjlE= =WhiW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ylS2wUBXLOxYXZFQ--