From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | xbdelacour(at)yahoo(dot)com |
Cc: | Ragnar Kjørstad <postgres(at)ragnark(dot)vestdata(dot)no>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large database help |
Date: | 2001-04-24 00:24:16 |
Message-ID: | 24501.988071856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
xbdelacour(at)yahoo(dot)com writes:
> I'm no Unix expert, but this would seem to indicate that shmget is
> successfully allocating 400385024/1024/1024=381MB of shared memory. I don't
> know enough about how the postgres parent/child/shmem scheme works to know
> why this is working yet the children only register 12MB of shared memory
> under top.
On most of the systems I've worked on, top does not seem to count shmem
blocks that a process is attached to in the process' memory usage. So
that doesn't prove much one way or the other.
I am wondering if your version of 'top' fails to count swapped-out shmem
segments against swap space, or something like that. That'd be a tad
weird, but it seems very improbable that your machine is not swapping;
I just do not believe top's claim that no swapping is happening.
Anyway, the most direct experiment would be to reduce your -B request to
100MB or so and see how things change...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ragnar Kjørstad | 2001-04-24 00:31:30 | Re: Large database help |
Previous Message | xbdelacour | 2001-04-24 00:15:05 | Re: Large database help |