Re: shared_buffers 8GB maximum

From: Vitaliy Garnashevich <vgarnashevich(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers 8GB maximum
Date: 2018-02-17 06:19:31
Message-ID: 2b526baa-e7a4-53d1-fa6b-f8b3f9744439@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


> Not necessarily - it depends on exactly what was changed ... which
> unfortunately I don't know for certain.
>
> Any filesystem call is a kernel transition. That's a Meltdown issue.
> Meltdown can be avoided by using trampoline functions to call the
> (real) kernel functions and isolating each trampoline so that no other
> code immediately follows it. This wastes some memory but there is
> very little added time cost.
>
>
> Spectre is about snooping within the user space of a single process -
> it has nothing to do with kernel calls. The issues with Spectre are
> things like untrusted code breaking out of "sandboxes", snooping on
> password handling or encryption, etc.
>
> Fixing Spectre requires purposefully limiting speculative execution of
> code and can significantly affect performance. But the effects are
> situation dependent.
>

I don't know the details either. But one of proposed fixes was to flush
CPU caches after doing system calls. That's the reason why I'm asking.

> So now you know that 32GB is better for your workload than 8GB. But
> that is not necessarily a reason immediately to go crazy with it. Try
> increasing it gradually - e.g., adding 16GB at a time - and see if the
> additional shared space provides any real benefit.

That's what we're going to do. Thanks!

Regards,
Vitaliy

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ken Tanzer 2018-02-17 09:00:46 Re: Any hope for more specific error message for "value too long..."?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-02-17 05:23:25 Re: Database health check/auditing