| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dhruv Shukla <dhruvshukla82(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com" <jayknowsunix(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problems with PG 9.3 |
| Date: | 2014-08-25 15:51:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1408981867.41595.YahooMailNeo@web122303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Dhruv Shukla <dhruvshukla82(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Other informational details about configurations are:
> shared_buffers = 80GB
> temp_buffers = 2GB
> work_mem = 2GB
> maintenance_work_mem = 16GB
Well, at the default max_connections of 100 that could easily
result in the server trying to allocate about 567GB of RAM. If
your number of connections is more than 100, adjust proportionally
higher. If the server doesn't have that, you could see extreme
swapping or various other problems as the OS tries to survive.
> effective_cache_size = 130GB
And the planner will be generating plans based on the assumption
that the combination of shared_buffers and the OS cache will have
this much RAM available for caching, so if you have max_connections
= 100 this configuration would only make sense on a machine with
RAM of 617GB or more, plus whatever is needed for the OS and
anything besides PostgreSQL that you want to run on the machine.
How much RAM is on the machine (or VM)?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dhruv Shukla | 2014-08-25 16:24:38 | Re: Problems with PG 9.3 |
| Previous Message | Dhruv Shukla | 2014-08-25 15:14:45 | Re: Problems with PG 9.3 |