-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Sheena,
Prabhjot
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 3:19 PM
To: ktm@rice.edu; Will Platnick
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PGBOUNCER ISSUE PLEASE HELP(Slowing down the site)
Hi Ken/ Will
I have checked the ulimit value and we are nowhere hitting the max 4096 that we have currently set. Is there any
otherexplanation why we should be thinking of bumping it to like ulimit -n 50000 ( Add ulimit -n 50000 to the start of
whateveryou use to start pgbouncer (init script, etc..)) even though we are not reaching 4096 max value
Regards
Prabhjot Singh
-----Original Message-----
From: ktm@rice.edu [mailto:ktm@rice.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:10 AM
To: Sheena, Prabhjot
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] PGBOUNCER ISSUE PLEASE HELP(Slowing down the site)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 05:41:01PM +0000, Sheena, Prabhjot wrote:
> Here is the output of OS limits
>
> postgres@symds-pg:~ $ ulimit -a
>
> core file size (blocks, -c) 0
> data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
> scheduling priority (-e) 0
> file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
> pending signals (-i) 790527
> max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 32
> max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited
> open files (-n) 4096
> pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8
> POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200
> real-time priority (-r) 0
> stack size (kbytes, -s) 10240
> cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
> max user processes (-u) 16384
> virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
> file locks (-x) unlimited
>
>
> Thanks
> Prabhjot
>
I would bump your open files as was suggested in your pgbouncer start script.
Regards,
Ken
---
Why are you so sure that it is PgBouncer causing slowness?
You, said, bouncer pool_size is set to 250. How many cores do you have on your db server?
Also, why are you running bouncer on a separate machine? It is very "light-weight", so running it on the db server
wouldn'trequire much additional resource, but will eliminate some network traffic that you have with the current
configuration.
Regards,
Igor Neyman