X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C6752862 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:13:00 -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 94290-07 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 13:12:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from titan.ecommit.de (titan.ecommit.de [195.145.58.245]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2544752825 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:12:50 -0300 (ADT) Received: from titan.ecommit.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by titan.ecommit.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id j52DCs0A029191 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:12:54 +0200 Received: from titan.ecommit.de (root@localhost) by titan.ecommit.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id j52DCsAa029190 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:12:54 +0200 Received: from fandelm.ecommit.de (fandelm.tc.de 192.168.252.51) by titan.ecommit.de (Scalix SMTP Relay 9.0.0.26) via ESMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:12:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 15:12:10 +0200 From: "Martin Fandel" To: "Martin Fandel" Cc: Postgresql Performance list Message-ID: <1117717930.4380.25.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> In-Reply-To: <1117717803.4380.23.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> References: <1117201312.7060.6.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> References: <1117716600.4380.13.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> References: <1117717803.4380.23.camel@fandelm.ecommit.de> Subject: Re: postgresql-8.0.1 performance tuning x-scalix-Hops: 1 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.057 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/37 X-Sequence-Number: 12675 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 >