From: | amrit(at)health2(dot)moph(dot)go(dot)th |
---|---|
To: | pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com |
Cc: | PGsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |
Date: | 2005-01-03 01:54:03 |
Message-ID: | 1104717243.41d8a5bb9cb9b@webmail.moph.go.th |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> The common wisdom of shared buffers is around 6-10% of available memory.
> Your proposal below is about 50% of memory.
>
> I'm not sure what the original numbers actually meant, they are quite large.
>
I will try to reduce shared buffer to 1536 [1.87 Mb].
> also effective cache is the sum of kernel buffers + shared_buffers so it
> should be bigger than shared buffers.
also make the effective cache to 2097152 [2 Gb].
I will give you the result , because tomorrow [4/12/05] will be the official day
of my hospital [which have more than 1700 OPD patient/day].
> Also turning hyperthreading off may help, it is unlikely it is doing any
> good unless you are running a relatively new (2.6.x) kernel.
Why , could you give me the reason?
> I presume you are vacuuming on a regular basis?
Yes , vacuumdb daily.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2005-01-03 02:26:10 | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |
Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-01-02 16:56:33 | Re: Low Performance for big hospital server .. |