Re: SHMMAX / SHMALL Was (Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning)

From: "Martin Fandel" <martin(dot)fandel(at)alphyra-evs(dot)de>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SHMMAX / SHMALL Was (Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning)
Date: 2005-06-03 09:19:03
Message-ID: 1117790343.4380.89.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

ok i set it to 524288. ;)

Am Freitag, den 03.06.2005, 21:10 +1200 schrieb Mark Kirkwood:
> Martin Fandel wrote:
> > Aah ok :)
> >
> > I've set my values now as follow (2GB RAM):
> >
> > SHMMAX=`cat /proc/meminfo | grep MemTotal | cut -d: -f 2 | awk '{print
> > $1*1024/3}'`
> > echo kernel.shmmax=${SHMMAX} >> /etc/sysctl.conf
> > SHMALL=`expr ${SHMALL} / 4096 \* \( 4096 / 16 \)`
> > echo kernel.shmall=${SHMALL} >> /etc/sysctl.conf
> >
> > sysctl.conf:
> > kernel.shmmax=708329472
> > kernel.shmall=44270592
> >
> > postgresql.conf:
> > max_connections=500
> > shared_buffers=40000 # ~312MB, min. 1000, max ~ 83000
> >
>
> Hmmm - shmall set to 168G... err why? Apologies for nit picking a little
> - but shmall seems unreasonably high. I can't see much reason for
> setting it bigger than (physical RAM in bytes)/4096 myself. So in your
> case this is 2*(1024*1024*1024)/4096 = 524288
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-06-03 10:41:22 Re: Filesystem
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-06-03 09:10:24 Re: SHMMAX / SHMALL Was (Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance