Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:42:37 -0500 From: "Polyack, Steve" <Steve.Polyack@intermedix.com> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: vmdaemon CPU usage and poor performance in 10.0-RELEASE Message-ID: <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098847AF@exchange03.epbs.com> In-Reply-To: <20140813152522.GI9400@home.opsec.eu> References: <4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098846B4@exchange03.epbs.com> <20140813152522.GI9400@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Jaeger [mailto:lists@opsec.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:25 AM >=20 > Hi! >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Are you aware of the recent work on that topic ? >=20 > https://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2014-04-2014- > 06.html#PostgreSQL-Performance-Improvements >=20 > Maybe kib@ knows more about this ? >=20 I've recently read over this and some other posts, but they all seem to cen= ter 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, whic= h we aren't running. We're not too keen on the idea of using CURRENT in pr= oduction, either. We're planning on testing 10-STABLE, but I was just hopi= ng to gain some insight into what the problem may be and whether recent com= mits to vmdaemon code in the -STABLE tree may have a positive effect on wha= t we've seen. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D557EC7CC2A544AA7C1A3B9CBA2B36726098847AF>