| From: | Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "List, Postgres" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | pgtune and massive shared_buffers recommendation |
| Date: | 2014-05-21 14:39:05 |
| Message-ID: | CADmi=6MqfscF4E5Sx+xS08+JuJJHjKjxK5zV8K5rDb6povCMhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi.
I've got some boxes with 128GB of RAM and up to 750 connections, just
upgraded to 9.3 so I'm revising my tuning. I'm getting a
recommendation from pgtune to bump my shared_buffers up to 30GB and
work_mem to 80MB. Is a shared_buffers this high now sane?
The PostgreSQL reference doesn't make recommendations on limits, but
it didn't either with earlier versions of PostgreSQL where more than a
few GB was normally a bad thing to do. The most recent blob posts I
see mentioning 9.3 and modern RAM sizes still seem to cap it at 8GB.
(and yes, I am using pgbouncer but stuck in session mode and up to 750
connections for the time being)
--
Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net>
http://www.stuartbishop.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aram Fingal | 2014-05-21 15:03:56 | Re: Convert an XML database |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2014-05-21 13:20:10 | Re: Need help on triggers - postgres 9.1.2 |