public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Adam Manock <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU?
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:42:16 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <5146853DD571D411AC54000102070D611C7F10@MINGBGNTS02>
	<5146853DD571D411AC54000102070D611C7F10@MINGBGNTS02>

 >This is almost certainly a lousy idea.  You do *not* want to chew up all
 >available memory for PG shared buffers; you should leave a good deal of
 >space for kernel-level disk buffers.

I decided to start high on buffers because of Bruce's:
	http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/hw_performance/
 From that I get the impression that operations using kernel disk buffer
cache are considerably more expensive than if the data was in shared
buffer cache, and that increasing PG's memory usage until the system
is almost using swap is The Right Thing To Do.  Has anyone got real
world test data to confirm or refute this??
    If not, then I am going to need to find or create a benchmarking program
to load down PG against a fake multi-gigabyte "production" database.
Or I could wait a week to see what RedHat does to tune their
implementation of PG :-)

Adam

view thread (14+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox