Horton
Menu

Thread

  1. Re: bad performance on irix

    Robert E. Bruccoleri <bruc@stone.congenomics.com> — 2002-03-13T00:05:33Z

    The bad performance in Irix appears to be a lack of resources, most
likely system buffers for sockets and I/O. Try increasing the system
parameter, nbuf, using systune, reboot, and see if it helps. Also,
use the "par" program with options "-s -SS -i -u -p <pid>"
to monitor activity in the backend -- that may provide some clues.

+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | email: bruc@acm.org                |
| P.O. Box 314                | URL:   http://www.congen.com/~bruc |
| Pennington, NJ 08534        |                                    |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+

  2. Re: bad performance on irix

    Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es> — 2002-03-13T07:54:50Z

    nbuf is set to 6653, here is a excerpt from par, thanks and regards



    0.000mS(+    0uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semctl() = 0
    0.038mS(+   37uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
   20.122mS(+20084uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b10, 1)
   27.747mS(+ 7624uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
   27.772mS(+   24uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
   30.772mS(+ 3000uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
   35.681mS(+ 4908uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
   35.703mS(+   21uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
   40.219mS(+ 4516uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
   58.859mS(+18640uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
   58.882mS(+   23uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
   61.475mS(+ 2592uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
   61.495mS(+   20uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
   61.967mS(+  471uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
   62.839mS(+  871uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
   63.063mS(+  224uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
   65.175mS(+ 2112uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
   83.060mS(+17884uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
   83.083mS(+   22uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
   85.848mS(+ 2764uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
   85.869mS(+   21uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
   87.775mS(+ 1906uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
   87.898mS(+  122uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b10, 1)
OK
   89.822mS(+ 1924uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
   91.676mS(+ 1853uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
  100.127mS(+ 8450uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
  100.152mS(+   25uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
  110.706mS(+10553uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b10, 1)
OK
  111.109mS(+  403uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
  112.860mS(+ 1750uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  113.292mS(+  432uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
  118.938mS(+ 5646uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  119.440mS(+  502uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
  120.410mS(+  969uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
  120.553mS(+  142uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
  126.386mS(+ 5833uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  126.919mS(+  533uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  127.574mS(+  654uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  128.011mS(+  436uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  128.489mS(+  477uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  128.895mS(+  405uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
  128.990mS(+   95uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
  149.407mS(+20416uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b10, 1)
OK
  149.969mS(+  561uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b10, 1)
OK
  150.364mS(+  395uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1b50, 1)
OK
  151.462mS(+ 1097uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
  156.185mS(+ 4723uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): END-semop() OK
  156.204mS(+   18uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  156.876mS(+  671uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  158.145mS(+ 1269uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  158.873mS(+  728uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK
  159.773mS(+  899uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a10, 1)
OK
  160.309mS(+  535uS)[  6]        postgres(54373): semop(606, 0x7fff1a00, 1)
OK

  3. Re: bad performance on irix

    Robert E. Bruccoleri <bruc@stone.congenomics.com> — 2002-03-13T13:19:18Z

    Dear Luis,
> 
> nbuf is set to 6653, here is a excerpt from par, thanks and regards

What kind of SGI are you using, and how much memory does it have?

I don't know what to make out of this par output. If this is from a running
Postgres, then it's waiting for a lock. Try the following:

echo where | dbx -p <pid>

where <pid> is for the Postgres backend.

--Bob

+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | email: bruc@acm.org                |
| P.O. Box 314                | URL:   http://www.congen.com/~bruc |
| Pennington, NJ 08534        |                                    |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+

  4. Re: bad performance on irix

    Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es> — 2002-03-13T15:43:42Z

    sorry, I thought i 've posted it before:

Processor 0: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.5
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.5
Processor 1: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.5
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.5
Processor 2: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.5
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.5
Processor 3: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.5
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.5
Processor 4: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.6
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.6
Processor 5: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.6
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.6
Processor 6: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.6
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.6
Processor 7: 196 MHZ IP25 
CPU: MIPS R10000 Processor Chip Revision: 2.6
FPU: MIPS R10010 Floating Point Chip Revision: 2.6
Main memory size: 1024 Mbytes, 2-way interleaved
Instruction cache size: 32 Kbytes
Data cache size: 32 Kbytes
Secondary unified instruction/data cache size: 2 Mbytes
Integral SCSI controller 0: Version WD33C95A, single ended, revision 0
  Tape drive: unit 4 on SCSI controller 0: DAT
  CDROM: unit 5 on SCSI controller 0
Integral SCSI controller 1: Version WD33C95A, differential, revision 0
  Disk drive: unit 1 on SCSI controller 1
  Disk drive: unit 2 on SCSI controller 1
  Disk drive: unit 3 on SCSI controller 1
  Disk drive: unit 4 on SCSI controller 1
Integral EPC serial ports: 4
Integral EPC parallel port: Ebus slot 5
Integral Ethernet controller: et0, Ebus slot 5
I/O board, Ebus slot 5: IO4 revision 1
VME bus: adapter 21
VME bus: adapter 0 mapped to adapter 21
EPC external interrupts

thanks and regards

  5. Re: bad performance on irix

    Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es> — 2002-03-13T15:45:17Z

    Yes, its waiting for locks, almost all orange area in the grafic is due to
lock contention
thanks and regards

  6. Re: bad performance on irix

    Robert E. Bruccoleri <bruc@stone.congenomics.com> — 2002-03-13T16:04:35Z

    Dear Luis,
	After looking at your system configuration, I would recommend
buying more RAM (it's very inexpensive for older systems like yours),
and then allocating much more buffer space for PostgreSQL. It will
have a profound effect on overall performance, although not for this
particular problem where lock contention is an issue.

+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | email: bruc@acm.org                |
| P.O. Box 314                | URL:   http://www.congen.com/~bruc |
| Pennington, NJ 08534        |                                    |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------+

  7. Re: bad performance on irix

    Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es> — 2002-03-13T16:08:51Z

    hi robert:
postgres is not using all the ram it has allocated, our database is about
100Mb, it grows up to 300 - 400 Mb on an execution, so i don't think it
should be lack of memory.
thanks and regards

  8. Re: bad performance on irix

    Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es> — 2002-03-13T16:10:26Z

    if you are interested, here is what dbx gives out, they are from 4 different
backends
thanks and regards