From: | Michal TOMA <mt(at)sicoop(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marcin Mańk <marcin(dot)mank(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_xlog size growing untill it fills the partition |
Date: | 2013-10-08 11:38:59 |
Message-ID: | 201310081339.02216.mt@sicoop.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Monday 07 October 2013 15:23:33 Marcin Mańk wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Michal TOMA <mt(at)sicoop(dot)com> wrote:
> > Now I have:
> > checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
> > wal_buffers = 8MB
> > checkpoint_segments = 16
> > checkpoint_timeout = 20min
> > shared_buffers = 2GB
> > log_checkpoints = on
> >
> > This is what I can see in the log:
> > 2013-10-03 13:58:56 CEST LOG: checkpoint starting: xlog
> > 2013-10-03 13:59:56 CEST LOG: checkpoint complete: wrote 448 buffers
> > (0.2%); 0 transaction log file(s) added, 9 removed, 18 recycled;
> > write=39.144 s, s, sync=12102.311 s, total=12234.608 s; sync files=667,
> > longest=181.374 s, average=18.144 s
> > 2013-10-03 22:30:25 CEST LOG: checkpoint starting: xlog time
>
> From your logs, it seems that the writes are spread all over the (fairly
> large) database. Is that correct? What is the database size? What is the
> size of the working data set (i.e. the set of rows that are in use)?
>
> I heard of people having good results with setting a low value for
> shared_buffers (like 128MB) in a high write activity scenarios. Setting it
> that low would mean that checkpoints would have 16 times less to do.
Quite surprisingly this seems to work also in my case. Tanks for the advice.
Michal
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2013-10-08 12:34:20 | Re: Why there are no max_wal_receivers |
Previous Message | Michal TOMA | 2013-10-08 11:36:46 | Re: pg_xlog size growing untill it fills the partition |