From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> |
Cc: | Babak Badaei <babak(at)hemaka(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: max_connections limit |
Date: | 2003-04-18 21:52:26 |
Message-ID: | 14484.1050702746@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Sean Chittenden <sean(at)chittenden(dot)org> writes:
> I wonder how correct the following is:
> SHMMAXPGS = ((max_connections * shared_buffers * 16K) + (wal_buffers *
> 8K) + (max_fsm_relations * 40B) + (max_fsm_pages * 6B)) /
> page_size
Not very. shared_buffers are 8K apiece, not 16K, and you don't multiply
them by max_connections. There *is* a multiplier for max_connections
but I'm not sure what it is --- less than 1K, probably. Also you should
allow for the lock table, which will be some small multiplier times
max_connections * max_locks_per_transaction.
> SEMMNI = 2 * max_connections (????)
> SEMMSL = SEMMNI
> SHMSEG = 10 # (???? this is a per SysV process setting)
> SEMMNS = 1.5 * max_connections (????)
> SEMMNU = 0.75 * max_connections (????)
> SEMUME = 10 (????)
Dunno where you got these semaphore numbers from, either.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sean Chittenden | 2003-04-18 22:09:42 | Re: max_connections limit |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-04-18 20:35:05 | Re: Performance Expectations |