On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Frost <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com> writes:
>> ... Interestingly, when you
>> strace the backend, it doesn't appear to be doing too much...here's some
>> sample output:
>
>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout)
>> semop(3932217, 0x7fbfffd150, 1) = 0
>> semop(3932217, 0x7fbfffd150, 1) = 0
>> semop(3932217, 0x7fbfffd150, 1) = 0
>> semop(3932217, 0x7fbfffd150, 1) = 0
>> semop(3932217, 0x7fbfffd150, 1) = 0
>> select(0, NULL, NULL, NULL, {0, 1000}) = 0 (Timeout)
>> semop(3997755, 0x7fbfffd170, 1) = 0
>> semop(3932217, 0x7fbfffd150, 1) = 0
>
> This looks suspiciously like the sort of trace we saw in the various
> "context swap storm" threads. The test cases for those generally
> involved really tight indexscan loops, ie, the backends were spending
> all their time trying to access shared buffers. If you haven't changed
> the function or the data, then I concur with the nearby worry about
> autovacuuming (large buildup of dead tuples could result in this symptom).
> Or maybe you've got an old open transaction that is blocking cleanup?
Tom,
I doubt it's a problem with autovacuum as the data in this server was just
loaded an hour before the strace above was taken, so there should have been
almost no dead tuples, especially since these tables are nearly write once.
I.e. they get written to once, then the populate function updates them, then
months later they get archived off.
There did not appear to be high context switch activity nor any IO wait to
mention during the time I was watching the postmaster. If it's worth
mentioning, it's running CentOS 4.4 with the kernel-2.6.9-34.EL kernel.
--
Jeff Frost, Owner <jeff@frostconsultingllc.com>
Frost Consulting, LLC http://www.frostconsultingllc.com/
Phone: 650-780-7908 FAX: 650-649-1954
