| From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Lister <john(dot)lister(at)kickstone(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Linux memory zone reclaim |
| Date: | 2012-07-24 22:05:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAGTBQpZPHdzudWgbTC76=32g_mXTeOSetw50djjnQMimmFKohg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM, John Lister <john(dot)lister(at)kickstone(dot)com> wrote:
> Cheers, I'll give it a go, I wonder if this is likely to be integrated into
> the main code? As has been mentioned here before, postgresql isn't as badly
> affected as mysql for example, but I'm wondering if the trend to larger
> memory and more cores/nodes means it should be offered as an option?
> Although saying that I've read that 10Gb of shared buffers may be enough
> even in big machines 128+Gb ram..
>
> Thoughts?
The attached (better) patch builds and doesn't crash at least.
Which is always good.
Configure with --with-numa
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| numa.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksei Arefjev | 2012-07-25 06:52:35 | Re: transactions start time |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-07-24 21:57:21 | Re: Linux memory zone reclaim |