Re: pgtune + configurations with 9.3

From: Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com>
To: 'Alexey Vasiliev' <leopard_ne(at)inbox(dot)ru>
Cc: 'Josh Berkus' <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgtune + configurations with 9.3
Date: 2014-11-14 16:28:16
Message-ID: 0683F5F5A5C7FE419A752A034B4A0B9797DCD287@sswchi5pmbx2.peak6.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Alexey,

The issue is that the 1/4 memory suggestion hasn't been a recommendation in quite a while. Now that much larger amounts of RAM are readily available, tests have been finding out that more than 8GB of RAM in shared_buffers has diminishing or even worse returns. This is true for any version. Further, since PostgreSQL manages its own memory, and the Linux Kernel also manages various caches, there's significant risk of storing the same memory both in shared_buffers, and in file cache.

There are other tweaks the tool probably needs, but I think this, more than anything else, needs to be updated. Until PG solves the issue of double-buffering (which is somewhat in progress since they're somewhat involved with the Linux kernel devs) you can actually give it too much memory.

______________________________________________

See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexey Vasiliev 2014-11-14 16:40:19 [PERFORM] pgtune + configurations with 9.3
Previous Message Glyn Astill 2014-11-14 16:08:29 Re: 9.0 performance degradation with kernel 3.11