From: | Willy-Bas Loos <willybas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-cluster-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [performance] fast reads on a busy server |
Date: | 2012-06-27 11:28:39 |
Message-ID: | CAHnozThsAoNO5AFcdMy+HDWXoVJw5i-NoZuij7OoEhHsWc57PQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-cluster-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Willy-Bas Loos <willybas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I cannot follow that reasoning completely. Who needs OS level file cache
> when postgres' shared_buffers is better? The efficiency should go up again
> after passing 50% of shared buffers, where you would be caching everything
> twice.
> The only problem i see is that work_mem and such will end up in SWAP if
> there isn't enough memory left over to allocate.\
That is, 25% probably works best when there is only one cluster.
I'm just wondering about this particular case:
* more than 1 cluster on the machine, no separate file systems.
* need fast writes on one cluster, so steal some memory to fit the DB in
shared_buffers
* now there is useless data in the OS file-cache
Should i use a larger shared_buffers for the other cluster(s) too, so that
i bypass the inefficient OS file-cache?
Cheers,
WBL
--
"Quality comes from focus and clarity of purpose" -- Mark Shuttleworth
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Willy-Bas Loos | 2012-06-27 11:58:06 | Re: [performance] fast reads on a busy server |
Previous Message | Willy-Bas Loos | 2012-06-27 10:01:51 | Re: [performance] fast reads on a busy server |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Willy-Bas Loos | 2012-06-27 11:58:06 | Re: [performance] fast reads on a busy server |
Previous Message | Willy-Bas Loos | 2012-06-27 10:01:51 | Re: [performance] fast reads on a busy server |