Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux

From: James Robinson <jlrobins(at)socialserve(dot)com>
To: Hackers Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Postgres vs. intel ccNUMA on Linux
Date: 2010-09-29 18:45:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

	Any tips / conventional wisdom regarding running postgres on large- 
ish memory ccNUMA intel machines, such as a 32G dual-quad-core,  
showing two NUMA nodes of 16G each? I expect each postgres backend's  
non-shared memory usage to remain nice and reasonably sized, hopefully  
staying within the confines of its processor's local memory region,  
but how will accesses to shared memory and / or buffer cache play out?  
Do people tune their backends via 'numactl' ?

	Furthermore, if one had more than one database being served by the  
machine, would it be advisable to do this via multiple clusters  
instead of a single cluster, tweaking the processor affinity of each  
postmaster accordingly, trying to ensure each cluster's shared memory  
segments and buffer cache pools remain local for the resulting backends?

James Robinson


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2010-09-29 19:09:05
Subject: Re: recovery.conf location
Previous:From: Colin 't HartDate: 2010-09-29 18:27:11
Subject: Re: documentation udpates to pgupgrade.html

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group