Re: oom_killer

From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tory M Blue <tmblue(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: oom_killer
Date: 2011-04-21 15:57:55
Message-ID: BANLkTi=d3aJ20GnRGO_3JXyju0mcqe65HA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Tory M Blue <tmblue(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> # - Checkpoints -
> checkpoint_segments = 100
> max_connections = 300
> shared_buffers = 2500MB       # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
> max_prepared_transactions = 0
> work_mem = 100MB
> maintenance_work_mem = 128MB
> fsync = on

That's an unrealistic setting for a 32-bit system, which can only
address 3GB of memory per process.

You take away 2500MB for shared buffers, that leaves you only 500M for
data, some of which is code.

There's no way PG can operate with 100MB work_mem llike that.

Either decrease shared_buffers, or get a 64-bit system.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tory M Blue 2011-04-21 16:15:51 Re: oom_killer
Previous Message Tory M Blue 2011-04-21 15:54:38 Re: oom_killer