Re: pg 9.1 brings host machine down - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Konstantin Mikhailov
Subject Re: pg 9.1 brings host machine down
Date
Msg-id CABDd6w_c9=-KyOCpxD3nsyigzeKBbpP4KzEgK4H9UcZwmyGS4w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg 9.1 brings host machine down  (Patric Bechtel <patric.bechtel@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pg 9.1 brings host machine down
List pgsql-performance
Thanks alot. I've tried to play with work_mem and after few days
of the production testing pg behaves much better. See no more
files in the pgsql_tmp folder. pg processes consumes reasonable
memory, no swap operation any more. I've studied official pg
docs about work_mem an still have no idea which optimal value
work_mem should have. 1MB is obviously too small. I've increased
up to 32m. due to a lot of the sorts and hash joins in the queries.


On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Patric Bechtel <patric.bechtel@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

which fs with which settings are you using? What's the work_mem settings? Which size do the files
have?

Depending on the answer of above questions I would suggest:
- - RAM disk, SSD or separate disk for pgsql_tmp
- - using xfs with noatime,nodiratime,delaylog,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k,nobarrier for the tmp area
- - separating pg_xlog on yet another disk (xfs, too, but with barrier)
- - using deadline scheduler for all database disks
- - increasing work_mem to at least the "common" file size +50%

there's more if I'd know more about the setup.

hth,

Patric

Vitalii Tymchyshyn schrieb am 06.06.2012 14:25:
> Hello.
>
> Seen this already. It looks like cross join + sort. Badly configured ORM tools like Hibernate
> with multiple one-to-many relationships fetched with 'join' strategy may produce such result.
> Unfortunately I don't know if it's possible to protect from such a case at server side.
>
> Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
>
> 06.06.12 15:05, Konstantin Mikhailov написав(ла):
>> I'm faced with a problem running postgres 9.1.3 which seems to nobody else see before. Tried
>> to search and only one relevant post fond (about millions of files in pgsql_tmp).
>>
>> Sympthoms:
>>
>> Some postgres process size is getting abnormally big compared to other postgres processes.
>> Top shows the 'normal' pg processed is about VIRT 120m, RES ~30m and SHR ~30m. That one is
>> about 6500m, 3.4g, 30m corresp. Total RAM avail - 8g. When one more such a process appears
>> the host going into deep swap and pg restart can help only (actually the stop won't even stop
>> such a process - after shutdown it still alive and can be only killed).
>>
>> base/pgsql_tmp contains millions of files. In this situation stop and dirty restart is
>> possible - the normal startup is impossible either. Read somewhere that it tries to delete (a
>> millions files) from that directory. I can't even imagine when it finish the deletion so i'm
>> simple move that folder outside the base - then start can succeed.
>>
>> on ubuntu 11.10,12.04 x64. cpu intel core Q9650 3GHz. 8G RAM.
>>
>> Does anybody see that behaviour or maybe have some glue how to handle it.
>>
>> PS: the my preliminary conclusion: some sql is produces a lot of files in the temporary table
>> spaces - very quickly. When sql is finished postgres tries to cleanup the folder reading all
>> contents of the folder and removing the files one by one. It does the removal slow (watched
>> the folder by `find pgsql_tmp | wc -l') but process still consumes the RAM. Next such sql
>> will be a killer :(
>>
>>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: GnuPT 2.5.2

iEYEARECAAYFAk/PT7sACgkQfGgGu8y7ypCr+QCglfi5t4mllLrqVBTbk8SIHt7i
2y8An2wzekmPmx7DsXDQ/h/t2lwDfYDs
=BHRV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: how to change the index chosen in plan?
Next
From: Rural Hunter
Date:
Subject: Re: how to change the index chosen in plan?