There is something wonky on this mail list. I did not send this.
-Original Message-
From: Gregory S. Williamson
Sent: Fri 6/11/2004 2:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [GENERAL] Trying to minimize the impact of checkpoints (resend)
In-reply
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm using PostgreSQL 7.3.4 on RH9. Data and logs are on separate
> disks. (These are low-end IDE disks. That part of the problem
> is out of my control.)
> When a checkpoint occurs, all operations slow way, way down.
Not too surprising; you haven't got enough I/O bandw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does anyone have any experience in modifying the priority of the
> checkpoint process itself, (re-nicing it)?
Unfortunately for you, re-nicing doesn't generally affect a processes
I/O rate--it's meant for CPU-bound processes.
It might be possible to add code to "throt
[Sorry if this is a repeat. I think the first message may have
been rejected due to an attachment.]
I'm using PostgreSQL 7.3.4 on RH9. Data and logs are on separate
disks. (These are low-end IDE disks. That part of the problem
is out of my control.)
When a checkpoint occurs, all operations slow w
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> When a checkpoint occurs, all operations slow way, way down.
> The attached spreadsheet (xls file, prepared in OO so unlikely
> to be dangerous) shows a run of a few hours, and the various spikes
> every 25-30 minutes seem consistent with checkpointing. The
> applicat
