From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, GB Clark <postgres(at)vsservices(dot)com>, glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |
Date: | 2002-07-23 14:23:34 |
Message-ID: | 3D3D66E6.21410453@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:52:56AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > No resource limit on that? So my 200 backends all map some random
> > 16,000 blocks from 400 files and the kernel jiggles with it like
> > it's never did anything else?
>
> My machine here is idling not doing much and the kernel is managing 53
> processes with 223 open files currently caching some 52,000 blocks and 1140
> mmap()ed areas. I'm sure if I actually did some work I could make that much
> higher.
>
> In short, if you have a machine capable of running 200 backends, I wouldn't
> be surprised if the kernel wasn't already managing that kind of load.
> Remember, brk() is really just a special kind of mmap().
Okay,
I'm running out of arguments here. So where is the patch?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2002-07-23 14:32:08 | Re: High availibility with PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Barry Lind | 2002-07-23 14:17:06 | Re: Difficulty updating TEXT fields with JDBC. |