| From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Curtis Faith <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pgsql-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme] |
| Date: | 2002-10-08 14:55:17 |
| Message-ID: | 1034088918.14350.279.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce,
Is there remarks along these lines in the performance turning section of
the docs? Based on what's coming out of this it would seem that
stressing the importance of leaving a notable (rule of thumb here?)
amount for general OS/kernel needs is pretty important.
Greg
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 09:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> (This is, BTW, one of the reasons for discouraging people from pushing
> Postgres' shared buffer cache up to a large fraction of total RAM;
> starving the kernel of disk buffers is just plain not a good idea.)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curtis Faith | 2002-10-08 14:57:15 | Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-08 14:50:58 | Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme] |