Re: SHMMAX value

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "Thalis A(dot) Kalfigopoulos" <thalis(at)cs(dot)pitt(dot)edu>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SHMMAX value
Date: 2001-06-27 17:41:17
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106271935560.729-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Thalis A. Kalfigopoulos writes:

> This was asked repeatedly the past 2 weeks. With regard to "what is a
> sane value for shmmax in the kernel?" Oracle's recommendation is to go
> for 0.5*physical_memory. So I gues that 0.25*physical_memory for Pg
> should be fine.

The only reason that I can see not to set SHMMAX to infinity is that some
joe user could lock up all your available memory. This problem is present
for any value, but depending on how your kernel handles shared memory when
physical memory is tight it might get worse when SHMMAX is close to the
total size of physical memory.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

  • SHMMAX value at 2001-06-27 16:47:44 from Thalis A. Kalfigopoulos

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-27 17:52:40 Re: SHMMAX value
Previous Message Doug McNaught 2001-06-27 17:31:44 Re: Data migration problems with Upgrade from Version 6.5.2 to 7.1.2