From frum@ar-sd.net Mon Oct  10 08:40:04 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43574D9A92
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:40:04 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 87064-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:40:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ar-sd.net (unknown [82.77.155.72])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B9ED7F3F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:40:01 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4853498E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:24:00 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from ar-sd.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (linz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
	id 30889-05 for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:23:59 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from forge (unknown [192.168.0.11])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 539603176B
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:23:59 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
From: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
To: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Server misconfiguration???
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:39:45 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006A_01C5CD8F.4FD95DF0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ar-sd.net
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.313 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.235,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05, HTML_60_70=0.027, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/157
X-Sequence-Number: 14925

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C5CD8F.4FD95DF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi to all,=20

I have the following configuration:
Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz, 1G RAM and postgre 8.0.3 installed.

Modified configuration parameters:

max_connections =3D 100=20

shared_buffers =3D 64000  # 500MB =3D 500 x 1024 x 1024 / (8 x 1024) =
(8KB)
work_mem =3D 51200  # 50MB =3D 50 x 1024 KB
maintenance_work_mem =3D 102400 # 50MB =3D 100 x 1024 KB=20

checkpoint_segments =3D 10

effective_cache_size =3D 25600 # 200MB =3D 50 x 1024 / 8=20

client_min_messages =3D notice=20
log_min_messages =3D notice
log_min_duration_statement =3D 2000



I get the feeling the server is somehow missconfigured or it does not =
work at full parameter. If I look at memory allocation, it never goes =
over 250MB whatever I do with the database. The kernel shmmax is set to =
600MB. Database Size is around 550MB.=20


Need some advise.=20

Thanks.=20
Andy.

------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C5CD8F.4FD95DF0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi to all, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have the following =
configuration:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz, 1G RAM and postgre =
8.0.3=20
installed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Modified configuration =
parameters:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>max_connections =3D 100 </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>shared_buffers =3D 64000&nbsp;&nbsp;# =
500MB =3D 500 x=20
1024 x 1024 / (8 x 1024) (8KB)<BR>work_mem =3D 51200&nbsp;&nbsp;# 50MB =
=3D 50 x 1024=20
KB<BR>maintenance_work_mem =3D 102400&nbsp;# 50MB =3D 100 x 1024 KB =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>checkpoint_segments =3D 10</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>effective_cache_size =3D 25600&nbsp;# =
200MB =3D 50 x=20
1024 / 8 </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>client_min_messages =3D =
notice&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>log_min_messages =3D =
notice</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>log_min_duration_statement =3D =
2000</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I get the feeling the server is somehow =

missconfigured or it does not work at full parameter. If I look at =
memory=20
allocation, it never goes&nbsp;over 250MB whatever I do with the =
database. The=20
kernel shmmax is set to 600MB. Database Size is around 550MB. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Need some advise. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Andy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C5CD8F.4FD95DF0--




From chriskl@familyhealth.com.au Mon Oct  10 08:55:19 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FEE5D9995
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:55:19 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 53503-05
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:55:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (houston.au.fhnetwork.com
	[203.22.197.21])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5F1D9B17
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:55:16 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from houston.familyhealth.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AFF2505A;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:55:15 +0800 (WST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (work-40.internal [192.168.0.40])
	by houston.familyhealth.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD4A24FF7;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:55:14 +0800 (WST)
Message-ID: <434A2C8B.3040803@familyhealth.com.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:55:39 +0800
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy <frum@ar-sd.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration???
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
In-Reply-To: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-familyhealth-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
	information
X-familyhealth-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-familyhealth-MailScanner-From: chriskl@familyhealth.com.au
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.061 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/158
X-Sequence-Number: 14926

A lot of them are too large.  Try:

Andy wrote:
> Hi to all,
>  
> I have the following configuration:
> Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz, 1G RAM and postgre 8.0.3 installed.
>  
> Modified configuration parameters:
>  
> max_connections = 100
>  
> shared_buffers = 64000  # 500MB = 500 x 1024 x 1024 / (8 x 1024) (8KB)

shared_buffers = 10000

> work_mem = 51200  # 50MB = 50 x 1024 KB

work_mem = 4096

> maintenance_work_mem = 102400 # 50MB = 100 x 1024 KB
>  
> checkpoint_segments = 10
>  
> effective_cache_size = 25600 # 200MB = 50 x 1024 / 8
>  
> client_min_messages = notice 
> log_min_messages = notice
> log_min_duration_statement = 2000
>  
>  
>  
> I get the feeling the server is somehow missconfigured or it does not 
> work at full parameter. If I look at memory allocation, it never 
> goes over 250MB whatever I do with the database. The kernel shmmax is 
> set to 600MB. Database Size is around 550MB.

That's because you have work_mem set massively high.  Remember that's 
PER SORT.  If you have 10 queries running each doing 3 sorts that's 30x 
the work_mem right there.

Chris




From frum@ar-sd.net Mon Oct  10 09:43:03 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12AED9A62
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:43:03 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 14849-10
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:43:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ar-sd.net (unknown [82.77.155.72])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD17D97D5
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 06:43:01 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E8234D76;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:26:59 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from ar-sd.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (linz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
	id 00681-02; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:26:57 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from forge (unknown [192.168.0.11])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 32F5B34C4E;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:26:57 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <00dc01c5cd7e$f6f127a0$0b00a8c0@forge>
From: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<434A2C8B.3040803@familyhealth.com.au>
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration???
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:42:43 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ar-sd.net
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.276 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/159
X-Sequence-Number: 14927

Yes you're right it really bosst a little.
I want to improve the system performance. Are there any more tipps?

On this server runs only a webserver with php application which uses postgre 
Db. Should I give more memory to postgre? From what I noticed this is the 
most memory "needing" service from this system.


Andy.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
To: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Server misconfiguration???


>A lot of them are too large.  Try:
>
> Andy wrote:
>> Hi to all,
>>  I have the following configuration:
>> Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz, 1G RAM and postgre 8.0.3 installed.
>>  Modified configuration parameters:
>>  max_connections = 100
>>  shared_buffers = 64000  # 500MB = 500 x 1024 x 1024 / (8 x 1024) (8KB)
>
> shared_buffers = 10000
>
>> work_mem = 51200  # 50MB = 50 x 1024 KB
>
> work_mem = 4096
>
>> maintenance_work_mem = 102400 # 50MB = 100 x 1024 KB
>>  checkpoint_segments = 10
>>  effective_cache_size = 25600 # 200MB = 50 x 1024 / 8
>>  client_min_messages = notice log_min_messages = notice
>> log_min_duration_statement = 2000
>>  I get the feeling the server is somehow missconfigured or it does not 
>> work at full parameter. If I look at memory allocation, it never goes 
>> over 250MB whatever I do with the database. The kernel shmmax is set to 
>> 600MB. Database Size is around 550MB.
>
> That's because you have work_mem set massively high.  Remember that's PER 
> SORT.  If you have 10 queries running each doing 3 sorts that's 30x the 
> work_mem right there.
>
> Chris
>
>
> 




From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Mon Oct  10 14:19:05 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E702BD8CEC
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:19:05 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 33618-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:18:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B5ED9CA8
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:57 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9AEIj8N020488;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:18:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration??? 
In-reply-to: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge> 
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
Comments: In-reply-to "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
	message dated "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:39:45 +0300"
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:18:45 -0400
Message-ID: <20487.1128953925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/166
X-Sequence-Number: 14934

"Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net> writes:
> I get the feeling the server is somehow missconfigured or it does not
> work at full parameter. If I look at memory allocation, it never goes
> over 250MB whatever I do with the database.

That is not wrong.  Postgres expects the kernel to be doing disk
caching, so the amount of memory that's effectively being used for
database work includes not only what is shown as belonging to the
PG processes, but some portion of the kernel disk buffers as well.
You don't really *want* the processes eating all of available RAM.

I concur with Chris K-L's comments that you should reduce rather
than increase your settings.

			regards, tom lane



From frum@ar-sd.net Mon Oct  10 14:31:32 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0800CD9D07
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:31:32 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 52575-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:31:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ar-sd.net (unknown [82.77.155.72])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036BAD9C62
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:31:26 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED4CE6A5;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:15:26 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from ar-sd.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (linz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
	id 02547-09; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:15:24 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from forge (unknown [192.168.0.11])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F94FE442;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:15:24 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <001201c5cda7$4314b430$0b00a8c0@forge>
From: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<20487.1128953925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration??? 
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:31:10 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ar-sd.net
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.257 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/167
X-Sequence-Number: 14935

When I ment memory allocation, I look with htop to see the process list, CPU 
load, memory, swap. So I didn't ment the a postgre process uses that amount 
of memory.

I read some tuning things, I made the things that are written there, but I 
think that there improvements can be made.

regards,
Andy.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
Cc: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Server misconfiguration???


> "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net> writes:
>> I get the feeling the server is somehow missconfigured or it does not
>> work at full parameter. If I look at memory allocation, it never goes
>> over 250MB whatever I do with the database.
>
> That is not wrong.  Postgres expects the kernel to be doing disk
> caching, so the amount of memory that's effectively being used for
> database work includes not only what is shown as belonging to the
> PG processes, but some portion of the kernel disk buffers as well.
> You don't really *want* the processes eating all of available RAM.
>
> I concur with Chris K-L's comments that you should reduce rather
> than increase your settings.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> 




From chriskl@familyhealth.com.au Mon Oct  10 14:56:51 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6606D9E16
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:56:51 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 23346-05
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:56:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vscan01.westnet.com.au (vscan01.westnet.com.au [203.10.1.131])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7668BD9E0E
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:56:33 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BEE76085E;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:39 +0800 (WST)
Received: from vscan01.westnet.com.au ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (vscan01.westnet.com.au [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
	port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 14678-20; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:39 +0800 (WST)
Received: from [202.72.133.22] (dsl-202-72-133-22.wa.westnet.com.au
	[202.72.133.22])
	by vscan01.westnet.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0AB27607ED;
	Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:38 +0800 (WST)
Message-ID: <434A8129.30308@familyhealth.com.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:56:41 +0800
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy <frum@ar-sd.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration???
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<434A2C8B.3040803@familyhealth.com.au>
	<00dc01c5cd7e$f6f127a0$0b00a8c0@forge>
In-Reply-To: <00dc01c5cd7e$f6f127a0$0b00a8c0@forge>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.009 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/169
X-Sequence-Number: 14937

> Yes you're right it really bosst a little.
> I want to improve the system performance. Are there any more tipps?

The rest of the numbers look vaguely ok...

> On this server runs only a webserver with php application which uses 
> postgre Db. Should I give more memory to postgre? From what I noticed 
> this is the most memory "needing" service from this system.

The best thing you can do is use two servers so that pgsql does not 
compete with web server for RAM...  Personally I'd start looking at my 
queries themselves next, see where I could optimise them.

Chris



From ajs@crankycanuck.ca Thu Oct  13 15:01:25 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12671D7D59
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:01:25 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 19147-09
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:01:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com
	[206.190.36.79])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 460D2D78E8
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:01:20 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 84456 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2005 15:01:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO phlogiston.dydns.org)
	(a.sullivan@rogers.com@209.222.54.227 with login)
	by smtp101.rog.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Oct 2005 15:01:19 -0000
Received: by phlogiston.dydns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 37880412B; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:01:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:01:18 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration???
Message-ID: <20051013150118.GC16317@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<20487.1128953925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<001201c5cda7$4314b430$0b00a8c0@forge>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001201c5cda7$4314b430$0b00a8c0@forge>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.033 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/226
X-Sequence-Number: 14994

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:31:10PM +0300, Andy wrote:
> I read some tuning things, I made the things that are written there, but I 
> think that there improvements can be made.

Have you tried the suggestions people made?  Because if I were you,
I'd be listing very carefully to what Chris and Tom were telling me
about how to tune my database.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. 
                --Brad Holland



From frum@ar-sd.net Fri Oct  14 07:23:51 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EF7D7F27
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:23:51 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 72946-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:23:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ar-sd.net (unknown [82.77.155.72])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10136D7F1F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:23:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90E521E49;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:23 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from ar-sd.net ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (linz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP
	id 01705-02; Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:21 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from forge (unknown [192.168.0.11])
	by ar-sd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 0FAFE21DB4;
	Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:21 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <007301c5d090$319bcf90$0b00a8c0@forge>
From: "Andy" <frum@ar-sd.net>
To: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>,
 <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
References: <006f01c5cd76$2b166490$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<20487.1128953925@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<001201c5cda7$4314b430$0b00a8c0@forge>
	<20051013150118.GC16317@phlogiston.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: Server misconfiguration???
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:23:18 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ar-sd.net
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.181 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/231
X-Sequence-Number: 14999

Yes I did, and it works better(on a test server). I had no time to put it in 
production.
I will try to do small steps to see what happens.

Regards,
Andy.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Server misconfiguration???


> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:31:10PM +0300, Andy wrote:
>> I read some tuning things, I made the things that are written there, but 
>> I
>> think that there improvements can be made.
>
> Have you tried the suggestions people made?  Because if I were you,
> I'd be listing very carefully to what Chris and Tom were telling me
> about how to tune my database.
>
> A
>
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
> In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
> garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
>                --Brad Holland
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>