On 10/8/2004 12:20 PM, Vivek Khera wrote:

> On Oct 8, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> 
>> Do you have any idea where and what the bottleneck of that copy 
>> process is? I can't imagine that it is either CPU or disk IO on the 
>> provider (master). I can however imagine that with various indexes, it 
>> can be memory or
> 
> The slave is pegged at 100% disk utilization.  I probably could tweak 
> the shared buffers some, but it is just a test box so I probably 
> neglected to do that.

That probably won't help much anyway. If the box would have enought mem 
to keep the indexes cached, the kernel buffers would do that and you 
would lose performance due to excessive memory copying (from PG shared 
bufs to kernel buffer and back). But if it's maxing out the disc, there 
isn't much to do other than dropping indexes on the slave (except for 
the key used by slony) before subscribing.


Jan

> 
> The production servers are tuned out the wazoo for performance. :-)
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Slony1-general mailing list
> Slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general


-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #