| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Cigar <jcigar(at)ulb(dot)ac(dot)be> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |
| Date: | 2012-10-10 16:10:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20121010161012.GE11892@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:11:30AM +0200, Julien Cigar wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 09:12, Strahinja Kustudić wrote:
> >Hi everyone,
>
> Hello,
>
> >
> >I have a Postgresql 9.1 dedicated server with 16 cores, 96GB RAM
> >and RAID10 15K SCSI drives which is runing Centos 6.2 x64. This
> >server is mainly used for inserting/updating large amounts of data
> >via copy/insert/update commands, and seldom for running select
> >queries.
> >
> >Here are the relevant configuration parameters I changed:
> >
> >shared_buffers = 10GB
>
> Generally going over 4GB for shared_buffers doesn't help.. some of
> the overhead of bgwriter and checkpoints is more or less linear in
> the size of shared_buffers ..
>
> >effective_cache_size = 90GB
>
> effective_cache_size should be ~75% of the RAM (if it's a dedicated server)
Why guess? Use 'free' to tell you the kernel cache size:
http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html#May_4_2012
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-10-10 17:05:20 | Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server |
| Previous Message | Korisk | 2012-10-10 16:09:02 | hash aggregation |