Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning

From: "Martin Fandel" <martin(dot)fandel(at)alphyra-evs(dot)de>
To: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning
Date: 2005-06-02 12:50:00
Message-ID: 1117716600.4380.13.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi,

hmmm i don't understand which are the best values for shmmax and shmall.
I've googled around but every site says something different.

I've 2GB of RAM now and set it to:

kernel.shmmax=715827882
kernel.shmall=2097152

Is that value ok for 2GB of RAM?

I've set the shared_buffers in my postgresql.conf to 87381
(87381*8*1024 = ~715827882).

Can I use www.powerpostgresql.com as reference to set this
parameters? Or which site can i use?

Best regards,
Martin

Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> >>fsync = true
> > false
>
> Just setting fsync=false without considering the implications is a
_bad_
> idea...
>
> /* Steinar */

Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> >>fsync = true
> > false
>
> Just setting fsync=false without considering the implications is a _bad_
> idea...
>
> /* Steinar */

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruno Wolff III 2005-06-02 13:02:59 Re: BUG #1697: Select getting slower on continously updating data
Previous Message Dirk Lutzebäck 2005-06-02 12:28:12 Re: SURVEY: who is running postgresql on 8 or more CPUs?