10.06.2010 10:07, Scott Marlowe пишет:
> 2010/6/9 Alexander V Openkin<open at immo.ru>:
>    
>> 09.06.2010 18:27, Scott Marlowe пишет:
>>      
>>> Oh whoa, I thought you were talking about the postgres backend that
>>> slony connects to using up that much memory.
>>>
>>>        
>> no, we tolking about slon processes, not about postgres backend.
>>
>>      
>>> I wonder if there's some accounting difference in how your vps works
>>> versus running right on the server.
>>>
>>>        
>> I have ~five replication cluster on slony1-1.2.14 and postgresql-8.3.9 on
>> i686 architecture and
>> we never see such problem...
>> I think that no differents between running slony cluster on hardware server
>> or VPS
>>      
> Is this the same OS as on hardware?  The accounting seems all kinds of
> wrong to me.  I just can't see slony asking for and getting 4G or 8G
> of ram.
>
>    
The same linux kernel,
on OpenVZ hardware server, we can run different OS (different linux 
distributions),
but the kernel will be same.

i run ps auxf on hardware server

[root at vz19 ~]# ps auxf |grep slon |grep cms
postgres  6973  0.0  0.0  40636  1836 ?        S    09:58   0:00  \_ 
/usr/bin/slon -f /etc/slony1.d/blabla
postgres  6974  0.0  0.0 4108420 1544 ?        Sl   09:58   0:00  |   \_ 
/usr/bin/slon -f /etc/slony1.d/blabla
postgres  7016  0.0  0.0  40640  1836 ?        S    09:58   0:00  \_ 
/usr/bin/slon -f /etc/slony1.d/blabla2
postgres  7017  0.0  0.0 4108424 1544 ?        Sl   09:58   0:00      \_ 
/usr/bin/slon -f /etc/slony1.d/blabla2
[root at vz19 ~]#

the fifth colunm is a VSZ (in kb) it show us two 4G segments...

>>>> Besides OpenVZ divide shared memory and resident memory
>>>>
>>>> [root at vps6147 /]# cat /proc/user_beancounters |grep -E
>>>> 'privvmpages|shmpages'
>>>> privvmpages 2029830 2033439 2621440 2621440 5
>>>> shmpages 17632 17632 412000 412000 0
>>>> [root at vps6147 /]#
>>>>
>>>> first column - the current value in 4k pages, it`s indicates very small
>>>> shared segment and huge resident segment,
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Yeah, that's different from what I was thinking was going on.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Do you have a expirience using slony1 on x86_64 servers ?
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Quite a bit actually.
>>>        
>>>> We using slony1 replication about 3 year on i686 architecture and we
>>>> hav`t
>>>>          
>>> Is that a "have" or "haven't" ?
>>>        
>> i mean haven't.
>> i have a 3 year expirience with slon replication and postgresql8.{0,1,2,3}
>> on i686 architecture and i have never seen it before
>>      
> I have mostly experience on x86_64 / AMD64 hardware.  A little in the
> past on 32 bit pentium, but that was slony 1.0 days.
>
>    
>> yesterday i read a news on slony.info "Slony-I 2.0.3 is not usable in its
>> current state."
>>      
> Correct.  Like 2.0.4 will be close.  I tried it last year and it blew
> up twice.  Luckily switching out 1.2.latest for 2.0.x is pretty easily
> done.
>
>    
>>>> similar problem....
>>>>
>>>> PS we using the same OpenVZ template for application servers, and
>>>> probability error in template or in the current VPS is minimum.
>>>>          
>>> I've never run dbs inside vms before (seems counter productive to me)
>>>        
>> PS sorry for my awful english, i am russian )
>>      
> Your English is much better than my Russian, no need to apologize.
>
> Have you tried switching it out for slony 1.2.latest?    I'm thinking
> it won't help this memory usage issue, but if you're in production you
> should really be on 1.2.latest not 2.0.x.
>
>    
I'll try 1.2.latest, and show result's