Re: requested shared memory size overflows size_t

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Wilcox <hungrytom(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bob Lunney <bob_lunney(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: requested shared memory size overflows size_t
Date: 2010-06-15 03:57:11
Message-ID: 26740.1276574231@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> writes:
> Great points. There is one other option that is decent for the WAL:
> If splitting out a volume is not acceptable for the OS and WAL -- absolutely split those two out into their own partitions. It is most important to make sure that WAL and data are not on the same filesystem, especially if ext3 is involved.

Uh, no, WAL really needs to be on its own *spindle*. The whole point
here is to have one disk head sitting on the WAL and not doing anything
else except writing to that file. Pushing WAL to a different partition
but still on the same physical disk is likely to be a net pessimization,
because it'll increase the average seek distance whenever the head does
have to move between WAL and everything-else-in-the-database.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-06-15 06:10:10 Re: B-Heaps
Previous Message Scott Carey 2010-06-15 03:49:40 Re: requested shared memory size overflows size_t