| From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql on SUN Server |
| Date: | 2003-05-27 18:07:06 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0305271206410.12134-100000@css120.ihs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 27 May 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:05:07AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > Correct. The max shared memory segment on 64 bit hardware is larger than
> > any amount of RAM currently installable. I'm pretty sure the limit is
> > so large that the overhead of handling a large segment would become a
> > problem long before you'd be able to hit a hard limit.
>
> Given that, in my experience, 1 Gig of shared buffer space totally
> tanked performance on Solaris 7, the limiti is already so large that
> handling a large segment is a problem ;-)
I wonder if that's a performance issue with Solaris and shared memory that
isn't a problem with BSD or Linux on Sparc Hardware?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nailah Ogeer | 2003-05-27 18:30:22 | libgcc_s.so.1 not found |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-05-27 17:59:01 | Re: newbie sql question... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nailah Ogeer | 2003-05-27 18:30:22 | libgcc_s.so.1 not found |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-05-27 17:55:00 | Re: [BUGS] Bug #928: server_min_messages (log_min_messages |