Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xdkcj-0008P1-5k for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:45:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xdkch-0007gy-Pk for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:45:35 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xdkcg-0007gr-SX for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:45:35 +0000 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xdkcd-0003pK-L5 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:45:33 +0000 Received: from vm-mailsrv.lan.net ([87.155.101.56]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MEmbK-1XOuep1G02-00G0JW; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:45:29 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vm-mailsrv.lan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16011DFB2; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:45:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.898 tagged_above=-99.9 required=6.31 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from vm-mailsrv.lan.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vm-mailsrv.lan.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bwM1el2L4WFH; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:45:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.94.76.102] (netbook.lan.net [10.94.76.102]) by vm-mailsrv.lan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C6CDFAD; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:45:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <543C1DBA.4020805@web.de> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:45:14 +0200 From: Jan Lentfer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RWzDrWFzIERhdmlk?= , pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9.3 abd CentOS 7 memory usage References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020509020605040906000404" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:g2dpWO1Q4h6T6EYa7KoikLUxOdCuLZdmz+FDCCJdoNe2cDLxuTY LTPBGBpFgweWOV9dK2DM2kH6y4vWSVSTpVTMXcHlXhc4ncTdE4R4bAzigz9LccjdymqoRli 2EAv4lRzdYPDy9I1xzFG0fIXAxD+FazkqaAH7k+rnxMPZ+17xzeXyN/67HD1gYhM/kfrVg/ F0tYIXv44UoIZaTfR30QA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------020509020605040906000404 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 13.10.2014 um 20:12 schrieb El=C3=ADas David: >> What's the on-disk size of your databases and can you estimate the actual working set? How long is this system up and being queried? >> I have seen similar when upgrading from 8.4 to 9.3 on Solaris 10, Postgres running in zones. I could not yet investigate further and performance is perfect still. > Ok, here it goes: > > ccs1cl --> 41 MB > db_otrs_ub --> 14 MB > elmap --> 207 MB > elmap_int --> 182 MB > invent_equi --> 532 MB > invent_equi_fc --> 114 MB > jasper --> 13 MB > netasis --> 23 MB > otrs --> 361 MB > patint --> 615 MB > seg_alt --> 75 MB > seg_alt_par --> 75 MB > > The average of transactions are around 85 per second and several of > the databases (jasper, patint, elmap...) are accessed everyday, 365 > days a year (it's part of an offering from the company that runs the > services every single day of the year). Right now the system has been > up for 17 days. > So, that sums up to 2,2GB of databases (is that the right unit? MB?) ... so even IF all of the data was read and stored in buffers that would not cause a significant amount of memory used data on a 128GB machine, When you look at "top" output, what the value for "cached" (5th line on the very right)? --------------020509020605040906000404 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Am 13.10.2014 um 20:12 schrieb El=C3=ADas David:

>> What's the on-disk size of your databases and can you estimate the actual working set? How long is this system up and being queried?
>> I have seen similar when upgrading from 8.4 to 9.3 on Solaris 10, Postgres running in zones. I could not yet investigate further and performance is perfect still.

Ok, here it goes:

ccs1cl --> 41 MB
db_otrs_ub --> 14 MB
elmap -->=C2=A0207 MB
elmap_int -->=C2=A0182 MB
invent_equi -->=C2=A0532 MB
invent_equi_fc -->=C2=A0114 MB
jasper -->=C2=A013 MB
netasis -->=C2=A023 MB
otrs -->=C2=A0361 MB
patint -->=C2=A0615 MB
seg_alt -->=C2=A075 MB
seg_alt_par -->=C2=A075 MB

The average of transactions are around 85 per second and several of the databases (jasper, patint, elmap...) are accessed everyday, 365 days a year (it's part of an offering from the company that runs the services every single day of the year). Right now the system has been up for 17 days.


So, that sums up to 2,2GB of databases (is that the right unit? MB?) ... so even IF all of the data was read and stored in buffers that would not cause a significant amount of memory used data on a 128GB machine, When you look at "top" output, what the value for "cached" (5th line on the very right)?
--------------020509020605040906000404--