From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
Cc: | postgresql performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How much ram is too much |
Date: | 2007-06-11 15:09:42 |
Message-ID: | E32FCBD3-0DD1-463B-AD5F-309E06F815D9@fastcrypt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10-Jun-07, at 11:11 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>> Is it possible that providing 128G of ram is too much ? Will other
>> systems in the server bottleneck ?
>
> Providing to what? PostgreSQL? The OS? My bet is that you'll run
> into issues with how shared_buffers are managed if you actually try
> and set them to anything remotely close to 128GB.
Well, we'd give 25% of it to postgres, and the rest to the OS.
What is it specifically you are referring to ?
Dave
> --
> Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christo Du Preez | 2007-06-11 15:10:02 | test / live environment, major performance difference |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2007-06-11 14:34:23 | Re: pg_statistic doesnt contain details for specific table |