Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:41:55AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>> I am aware of the heavy locking involved with Slony, which should mean that
>> it blocks the application connections; that's be completely acceptable,
>> given all the warnings in the Slo
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:41:55AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> I am aware of the heavy locking involved with Slony, which should mean that
> it blocks the application connections; that's be completely acceptable,
> given all the warnings in the Slony docs. But what I am concerned about and
> try
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 07:09:46AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> > Will try this option, at least in the next schema upgrade or when setting
> up
> > Slony.
>
> As I've already suggested, however, if you try to set up
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 02:23:43AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:36AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> >
> > Just started INIT cluster Slonik command and that spiked too.. for more than
> > 10 minutes now!!
>
> Are you attempting to do Slony changes (such as install S
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 07:09:46AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> Will try this option, at least in the next schema upgrade or when setting up
> Slony.
As I've already suggested, however, if you try to set up slony on a
loaded database, you're going to see all manner of problems. Slony
takes some
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:15 PM, David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:15:42AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:15:42AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > During these spik
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:41:36AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> Just started INIT cluster Slonik command and that spiked too.. for more than
> 10 minutes now!!
Are you attempting to do Slony changes (such as install Slony) on an
active database? I strongly encourage you to read the Slony manu
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:05:33AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
>
> > I just ran DROP SCHEMA _ CASCADE; and it spiked again, on a
> > very low loaded box!!
>
> Ah, well, if slony is involved, then you have possible locki
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:05:33AM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> I just ran DROP SCHEMA _ CASCADE; and it spiked again, on a
> very low loaded box!!
Ah, well, if slony is involved, then you have possible locking
problems in the database _also_ to contend with, along with the
spinlock problems. T
"Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can you please elaborate on what high level diagnosis would you need?
Well, we'd need some idea of which spinlock is being contended for...
> I just ran DROP SCHEMA _ CASCADE; and it spiked again, on a
> very low loaded box!!
That *might* mean that t
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > During these spikes, in the 'top' sessions we see the 'idle' PG
>> > processes consuming betwe
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > During these spikes, in the 'top' sessions we see the 'idle' PG
> > processes consuming between 2 and 5 % CPU, and since the box has 8 CPUS
> (2
> > sockets and each CPU is a
"Gurjeet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> During these spikes, in the 'top' sessions we see the 'idle' PG
> processes consuming between 2 and 5 % CPU, and since the box has 8 CPUS (2
> sockets and each CPU is a quad core Intel Xeon processors) and somewhere
> around 200 Postgres processes,
Just an addition... the strace o/p with selects timing out just runs almost
continuously, it doesn't seem to pause anywhere!
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Gurjeet Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have been perplexed by random load spikes on an 8.1.11 instance. many
> a time
15 matches
Mail list logo
