From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul McGarry <paul(at)paulmcgarry(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>, Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: shared_buffers advice |
Date: | 2010-03-15 21:01:02 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d11003151401v630a05c8ub3875a0f34e89e85@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Paul McGarry <paul(at)paulmcgarry(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 16:16, Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I *can* say a 10GB shared_buffer value is working "well" with my 128GB of RAM..... whether or not it's "optimal," I couldn't say without a lot of experimentation I can't afford to do right now. You might have a look at the pg_buffercache contrib module. It can tell you how utilized your shared buffers are.
>
> Thanks Ben and Greg,
>
> I shall start with something relatively sane (such as 10GB) and then
> see how we go from there.
>
> Once this server has brought online and bedded in I will be updating
> our other three servers which are identical in hardware spec and all
> have the same replicated data so I'll be able to do some real world
> tests with different settings withn the same load.
>
> (Currently one is currently running postgresql 8.1 on 32bit OS under a
> VM, the other two running 8.3 on 64bit OS with 64gig of memory but
> with Postgres still tuned for the 8 gigs the servers originally had
> and under a VM).
Definitely look at lowering the swappiness setting. On a db server I
go for a swappiness of 1
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-03-15 22:08:51 | Re: [PERFORM] [offtopic] Problems subscribing to Postgres mailing lists |
Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2010-03-15 17:58:16 | Re: shared_buffers advice |