file descriptors

Started by David Parkerabout 21 years ago5 messagesgeneral
Jump to latest
#1David Parker
dparker@tazznetworks.com

We have started getting the error

FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator command

in some of our processes. Searching in the archives, I gather that this
is caused by a SIGTERM, and might be coming from a ulimit problem.

We are running Solaris 9/Intel, and the ulimit for nofiles for the
database owner process is 256. I suspect this needs to be set to
"unlimited", which I don't think should cause a problem on Solaris (?).

Is there any rule of thumb for determining how many file descriptors a
given postmaster would use, e.g., a way to find out how many data files
exist on the server, and/or an estimate for how many of them would have
to be open at any given time? Do ALL of the data files get kept open, or
do they get opened and closed?

Thanks.

- DAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
David Parker Tazz Networks (401) 709-5130

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: David Parker (#1)
Re: file descriptors

"David Parker" <dparker@tazznetworks.com> writes:

We have started getting the error
FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator command
in some of our processes. Searching in the archives, I gather that this
is caused by a SIGTERM, and might be coming from a ulimit problem.

It is coming from a SIGTERM, but I'm not aware of any platforms that
respond to exceeding the ulimit open-files limit by SIGTERM'ing the
process. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

We are running Solaris 9/Intel, and the ulimit for nofiles for the
database owner process is 256. I suspect this needs to be set to
"unlimited", which I don't think should cause a problem on Solaris (?).

I think it *would* cause a problem, unless Solaris can support unlimited
numbers of open files --- we have certainly seen PG eat all available
file table slots on other kernels. I don't recommend raising nofiles.
The backends are perfectly capable of working within the nofiles limit
you set, and 256 seems high enough to avoid thrashing.

regards, tom lane

#3David Parker
dparker@tazznetworks.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#2)
Re: file descriptors

OK, well that's good to know. You mentioned ulimit in

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-12/msg00080.php

which ulimit parameters were you thinking of? That post is what set me
barking up
this tree ;-) The only other thing not set to "unlimited" is stack,
which is set to
8480 for the database owner on this system (not sure where that number
came from).

Thanks.

- DAP

Show quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:17 PM
To: David Parker
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] file descriptors

"David Parker" <dparker@tazznetworks.com> writes:

We have started getting the error
FATAL: terminating connection due to administrator

command in some

of our processes. Searching in the archives, I gather that this is
caused by a SIGTERM, and might be coming from a ulimit problem.

It is coming from a SIGTERM, but I'm not aware of any
platforms that respond to exceeding the ulimit open-files
limit by SIGTERM'ing the process. I think you're barking up
the wrong tree.

We are running Solaris 9/Intel, and the ulimit for nofiles for the
database owner process is 256. I suspect this needs to be set to
"unlimited", which I don't think should cause a problem on

Solaris (?).

I think it *would* cause a problem, unless Solaris can support
unlimited numbers of open files --- we have certainly seen PG
eat all available file table slots on other kernels. I don't
recommend raising nofiles.
The backends are perfectly capable of working within the
nofiles limit you set, and 256 seems high enough to avoid thrashing.

regards, tom lane

#4Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: David Parker (#3)
Re: file descriptors

"David Parker" <dparker@tazznetworks.com> writes:

OK, well that's good to know. You mentioned ulimit in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-12/msg00080.php

Well, that was a different scenario --- or at least I thought it was.
Are you seeing unwanted shutdown of the entire database cluster, or just
an individual backend? What shows up in the postmaster log when this
happens?

regards, tom lane

#5David Parker
dparker@tazznetworks.com
In reply to: Tom Lane (#4)
Re: file descriptors

It's just an individual backend. Unfortunately I don't have the postgres
log file yet, which would obviously help - I only have the application
client's log, but the people reporting the problem know they need to get
me the database log file next time it happens. I haven't been able to
repro this on my own yet.

Thanks.

- DAP

Show quoted text

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:40 PM
To: David Parker
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] file descriptors

"David Parker" <dparker@tazznetworks.com> writes:

OK, well that's good to know. You mentioned ulimit in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2003-12/msg00080.php

Well, that was a different scenario --- or at least I thought it was.
Are you seeing unwanted shutdown of the entire database
cluster, or just an individual backend? What shows up in the
postmaster log when this happens?

regards, tom lane