From: | Huan Ruan <huan(dot)ruan(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: shared_buffers vs Linux file cache |
Date: | 2015-01-16 03:32:03 |
Message-ID: | CAD1stZuVH6=kH_c9tvpeqH=oMdUFE9fcpcHdHVcC2w4Jhgqcyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Thanks very much, Glyn, Jeff, and Tom. That was very clearly explained.
A related case, see the following top dump. The Postgres process is using
87g residential memory, which I thought was the physical memory consumed by
a process that can't be shared with others. While, the free+cached is about
155gb. But, (87 + 155) is bigger than the total available 198g RAM. Does
this mean some of the residential memory used by Postgres is actually
shareable to others?
>> Mem: 198311880k total, 183836408k used, 14475472k free, 8388k buffers
>> Swap: 4194300k total, 314284k used, 3880016k free, 141105408k cached
>>
>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
>> 15338 postgres 20 0 97.9g 87g 87g S 0.3 46.4 21:47.44
>> postgres: checkpointer process
>> 27473 postgres 20 0 98.1g 29g 29g S 0.0 15.8 2:14.93
>> postgres: xxxx idle
>> 4710 postgres 20 0 98.1g 24g 23g S 0.0 12.7 1:17.41
>> postgres: xxxx idle
>> 26587 postgres 20 0 98.0g 15g 15g S 0.0 8.0 1:21.24
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2015-01-16 04:00:44 | Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-01-16 03:28:34 | Re: Strange choice of general index over partial index |