| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
| Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, masivakumar(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |
| Date: | 2010-08-13 00:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20100813.090619.118535546.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> With modern servers often shipping with 72GB of RAM now, that would make
> shared_buffers set to 18GB. This is an absolutely disastrous setting
> for PostgreSQL in its current state; I'm seeing servers with that much
> RAM that suffer enormous problems with a far lower shared_buffers than
> that in production. I'm working on a doc patch to address this better
> before 9.0 goes out but I assure you this simple rule of thumb is
> already nearing its end of life as a good one for big systems.
What's the problem with 18GB shared_buffers exactly?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2010-08-13 00:11:38 | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-08-13 00:01:39 | Re: MySQL versus Postgres |