From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Christian Bucanac <christian(dot)bucanac(at)mindark(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pgsql-General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? |
Date: | 2001-07-11 16:51:59 |
Message-ID: | 23761.994870319@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Christian Bucanac <christian(dot)bucanac(at)mindark(dot)com> writes:
>> I am going to try 768M (98304) for buffers and 6144 (6144 * 32 = 192M)
>> for sort mem. This way with the DB server serving a max of 32 application
>> servers the kernel and other processes should still have the last 64Mb RAM.
This is almost certainly a lousy idea. You do *not* want to chew up all
available memory for PG shared buffers; you should leave a good deal of
space for kernel-level disk buffers.
Other fallacies in the above: (1) you're assuming the SortMem parameter
applies once per backend, which is not the case (it's once per sort or
hash step in a query, which could be many times per backend); (2) you're
not allowing *anything* for any space usage other than shared disk
buffers and sort memory.
The rule of thumb I recommend is to use (at most) a quarter of real RAM
for shared disk buffers. I don't have hard measurements to back that
up, but I think it's a lot more reasonable as a starting point than
three-quarters of RAM.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-11 16:55:07 | Re: [PATCH] Partial indices almost there |
Previous Message | Ryan Mahoney | 2001-07-11 16:46:56 | Re: vacuum and 24/7 uptime |