Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL Regression Test Problems (Revisited)
От | Jason Tishler |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL Regression Test Problems (Revisited) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010328162928.D510@dothill.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL Regression Test Problems (Revisited) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL Regression Test Problems (Revisited)
|
Список | pgsql-ports |
Tom, On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:57:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Jason Tishler <Jason.Tishler@dothill.com> writes: > > I previously reported the above problem with the parallel version of > > the regression test (i.e., make check) on a machine with limited memory. > > Unfortunately, I am seeing similar problems on a machine with 192 MB of > > physical memory and about 208 MB of swap space. So, now I feel that my > > initial conclusion that limited memory was the root cause is erroneous. > > Not necessarily. 18 parallel tests imply 54 concurrent processes > (a shell, a psql, and a backend per test). Depending on whether Windoze > is any good about sharing sharable pages across processes, it's not hard > at all to believe that each process might chew up a few meg of memory > and/or swap. You don't have a whole lot of headroom there if so. I just increased the swap space (i.e., pagefile.sys) to 384 MB and I still get hangs. Watching memory usage via the NT Task Manager, Windows tells me that the memory usage during the regression test is <= 80 MB which is significantly less than my physical memory. I wonder if I'm bucking up against some Cygwin limitations. On the cygwin-developers list, there was a recent discussion that indicated that a Cygwin process can only have a max of 64 children. May be there is a limit like that which is causing backends to abort? > Try modifying the parallel_schedule file to break the largest set of > concurrent tests down into two sets of nine tests. I'm sure that will work (at least most of the time) since I only get one of two psql processes to hangs for any given run. But, "fixing" the problem this way just doesn't feel right to me. > Considering that we've seen people run into maxuprc limits on some Unix > versions, I wonder whether we ought to just do that across-the-board. Of course, this solution is much better. :,) > > What is the best way to "catch" this problem? What are the best set of > > options to pass to postmaster that will be in turn passed to the back-end > > postgres processes to hopefully shed some light on this situation? > > I'd use -d1 which should be enough to see backends starting and exiting. > Any more will clutter the log with individual queries, which probably > would be more detail than you really want... I've done the above and it seems to indicate that all backends exited with a status of 0. So, I still don't know why some backends "aborted." Any other suggestions? Such as somehow specifying an individual log file for each backend. Thanks, Jason -- Jason Tishler Director, Software Engineering Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235 Dot Hill Systems Corp. Fax: +1 (732) 264-8798 82 Bethany Road, Suite 7 Email: Jason.Tishler@dothill.com Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA WWW: http://www.dothill.com
В списке pgsql-ports по дате отправления: