I've now backed off to version 7.4.1, which doesn't exhibit the problems that
8.0.3 does. I guess I'll wait 'till the next version and see if any progress
has occurred.
Rob
When grilled further on (Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:49:08 -0600),
Robert Creager <Robert_Creager@logicalchaos.org> confessed:
> When grilled further on (Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:09:51 -0600),
> Robert Creager <Robert_Creager@StorageTek.com> confessed:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:54:22 -0400
> > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, I hadn't thought about the possible impact of multiple concurrent
> > > vacuums. Is the problem caused by that, or has performance already gone
> > > into the tank by the time the cron-driven vacuums are taking long enough
> > > to overlap?
> >
> >
> > I'll re-start the database, vacuum full analyze and restart the runs without
> the
> > cron vacuum running.
> >
>
> It took a few hours, but the problem did finally occur with no vacuum running
on
> 803. CS is averaging 72k. I cannot quantitatively say it took longer to
> reproduce than with the vacuums running, but it seemed like it did.
>
> Can any information be gotten out of this? Should I try CVS HEAD?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> --
> 22:41:36 up 6 days, 2:16, 6 users, load average: 0.15, 0.21, 0.30
> Linux 2.6.5-02 #8 SMP Mon Jul 12 21:34:44 MDT 2004
--
14:35:32 up 9 days, 18:10, 5 users, load average: 2.17, 2.19, 2.15
Linux 2.6.5-02 #8 SMP Mon Jul 12 21:34:44 MDT 2004
