Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40FC650320 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:26:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61518-02-8 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:26:11 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from correio.grupotba.com.br (correio.grupotba.com.br [200.202.33.155]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD877650749 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:22:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from bsblic204.grupotba.intra.corp ([200.184.101.131]) by correio.grupotba.com.br with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:26:28 -0300 Received: from 10.0.4.73 ([10.0.4.73]) by bsblic204.grupotba.intra.corp ([10.0.1.204]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:26:27 +0000 Received: from darkside by bsblic204.grupotba.intra.corp; 15 Jul 2008 14:22:32 -0300 Subject: Re: best starting points.... From: Fernando Ike de Oliveira To: Jessica Richard Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <202919.57936.qm@web56405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <202919.57936.qm@web56405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:22:32 -0300 Message-Id: <1216142552.12217.14.camel@darkside> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2008 17:26:28.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA7517B0:01C8E69F] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200807/136 X-Sequence-Number: 29746 Em S=C3=A1b, 2008-07-12 =C3=A0s 05:03 -0700, Jessica Richard escreveu: > On a new system with 64G memory, what is the best starting points for > shmmax on OS and shared_buffers for Postgres. All databases combined > are about 50G. >=20 > I want to evaluate this with the two following scenarios: >=20 > 1. this machine is running only Postgres, no other applications >=20 > 2. this machine has postgres plus some other things (such as web > server, etc). >=20 > What are the dangers for shmmax and shared_buffers to be confiugred > very big for each of the two scenarios? >=20 > In case #1, if shmmax =3D 63G and shared_buffers =3D 50G, can it speed up > Postgres (loading almost all dbs into memeory)?=20 =20 If to use virtually all memory to shared memory, you have concurrency others process of the SO. Generally webserver is concurrency with PostgreSQL in Shared Memory, if possible use in other server. To initial point, recommends to use 25-40% to shared memory and shared_buffers with value initial 25%. Recommends visit: - http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Performance_Optimization Best Regards, --=20 Fernando Ike de Oliveira