Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM

From: "Carlo Stonebanks" <stonec(dot)register(at)sympatico(dot)ca>
To: "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM
Date: 2007-09-05 15:57:19
Message-ID: 4F731254987542AF807CA3EDF411D12B@serenity
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

>> Large shared_buffers and Windows do not mix. Perhaps you should leave
the shmem config low, so that the kernel can cache the file pages.
<<

Is there a problem BESIDES the one that used to cause windows to fail to
allocate memory in blocks larger than 1.5GB?

The symptom of this problem was that postgresql would just refuse to
restart. Microsoft released a patch for this problem and we can now start
postgresql with larger shared buffers. If this is indeed the problem that
you refer to - and it has indeed been solved by Microsoft - is there a down
side to this?

>> It sounds like you will need a huge lot of vacuuming effort to keep up.
Maybe you should lower autovac scale factors so that your tables are
visited more frequently. A vacuum_delay of 40 sounds like too much
though.
<<

Does autovacuum not impede performance while it is vacuuming a table?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-09-05 16:03:48 Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2007-09-05 15:45:24 Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM