From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gavin Hamill <gdh(at)laterooms(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg 8.1.3, AIX, huge box, painfully slow. |
Date: | 2006-04-07 20:06:02 |
Message-ID: | 15772.1144440362@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Gavin Hamill <gdh(at)laterooms(dot)com> writes:
> Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> wrote:
>> My guess is that this is an OS issue. Maybe there are AIX tweaks that
>> will get it up to the same or higher level of performance as your four
>> way xeon. Maybe there aren't.
> The pSeries isn't much older than our Xeon machine, and I expected the
> performance level to be exemplary out of the box..
I'm fairly surprised too. One thing I note from your comparison of
settings is that the default WAL sync method is different on the two
operating systems. If the query load is update-heavy then it would be
very worth your while to experiment with the sync method. However,
if the bottleneck is pure-SELECT transactions then WAL sync should not
be a factor at all.
Does AIX have anything comparable to oprofile or dtrace? It'd be
interesting to try to monitor things at that level and see what we can
learn. Failing a low-level profiler, there should at least be something
comparable to strace --- you should try watching some of the backends
with strace and see what their behavior is when the performance goes
south. Lots of delaying select()s or semop()s would be a red flag.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2006-04-07 20:16:02 | Re: pg 8.1.3, AIX, huge box, painfully slow. |
Previous Message | Gavin Hamill | 2006-04-07 19:59:19 | Re: pg 8.1.3, AIX, huge box, painfully slow. |