| From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffer size? |
| Date: | 2017-09-20 19:24:52 |
| Message-ID: | 375f0a11-dfbd-ae9a-86c1-5f973b243cf7@cox.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 09/20/2017 01:05 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote:
> Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
>
>> On 09/19/2017 05:00 PM, Jerry Sievers wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> The DB is 10TB total size with OLTP plus some occasional heavy batching
>>> which frequently correlates with degradation that requires intervention.
>>>
>>> Unrelated server problem forced us to relocate from a Debian/Wheezy 3.x
>>> kernel 1T 144 CPU to the even bigger box mentioned earlier. And we wen
>>> up a major kernel version also in the process.
>> How did you backup/restore a 10TB db?
> We just relocated the SAN volume. Takes about 1 minute :-)
Ah, yes. Major *kernel* version. Never mind... :)
--
World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-20 19:39:01 | Re: Puzzled by UNION with unknown types |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2017-09-20 19:23:14 | Re: Up to date conventional wisdom re max shared_buffer size? |