Re: Low Performance for big hospital server ..

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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 ..