From: Martin Fandel <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de>
To: Martin Fandel <martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de>
Cc: Postgresql Performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:12:10 +0200
Message-ID: <1117717930.4380.25.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1117717803.4380.23.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
References: <1117201312.7060.6.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
I've forgotten the settings for the pgbench-tests. I use 150 clients
with 5 transactions each.
Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 15:10 +0200 schrieb Martin Fandel:
> Ups,
> i'm sorry. i've set the following values:
>
> postgresql.conf:
> shared_buffers = 70000
> effective_cache_size = 1744762
> work_mem = 32768
> maintenance_work_mem = 262144
> max_fsm_pages = 200000
>
> sysctl.conf:
> vm.swappiness=10
> kernel.shmmax=715827882
> kernel.shmall=2097152
>
> Are the values ok for a 2 GB machine? I'm testing these settings
> with contrib/pgbench. With this configuration i become up to 200tps
> including connection establishing. Is that value ok for this hardware?:
>
> 1xP4 3Ghz (hyperthreading enabled)
> 2GB 266 Mhz RAM CL2.5
>
> pg_xlog is on sda (raid1 with two 10k discs) and the database on
> sdb(raid10 with four 10k discs).
>
> My Linux distribution is Suse Linux 9.3 with postgresql 8.0.1.
>
> best regards,
> Martin
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2005, 14:50 +0200 schrieb Martin Fandel:
> > Hi,
> >
> > hmmm i don't understand which are the best values for shmmax and shmall.
> > I've googled around but every site says something different.
> >
> > I've 2GB of RAM now and set it to:
> >
> > kernel.shmmax=715827882
> > kernel.shmall=2097152
> >
> > Is that value ok for 2GB of RAM?
> >
> > I've set the shared_buffers in my postgresql.conf to 87381
> > (87381*8*1024 = ~715827882).
> >
> > Can I use www.powerpostgresql.com as reference to set this
> > parameters? Or which site can i use?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Martin
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> > > >>fsync = true
> > > > false
> > >
> > > Just setting fsync=false without considering the implications is a
> > _bad_
> > > idea...
> > >
> > > /* Steinar */
> >
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 01.06.2005, 11:57 +0200 schrieb Steinar H. Gunderson:
> > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> > > >>fsync = true
> > > > false
> > >
> > > Just setting fsync=false without considering the implications is a _bad_
> > > idea...
> > >
> > > /* Steinar */
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> > http://archives.postgresql.org
>
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: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: martin.fandel@alphyra-evs.de
Subject: Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning
In-Reply-To: <1117717930.4380.25.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox