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 BB9C6D9F92 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:29:41 -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 64162-01 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:29:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.surnet.cl (mx1.surnet.cl [216.155.73.180]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61475D9F7E for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:29:34 -0300 (ADT) Received: from unknown (HELO cluster.surnet.cl) ([216.155.73.165]) by mx1.surnet.cl with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2005 19:30:14 -0300 Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (216.155.78.167) by cluster.surnet.cl (7.0.043) (authenticated as alvherre@surnet.cl) id 433A601F006C8271; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:29:36 -0300 Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8CA31C4F1EC; Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:29:37 -0300 (CLST) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:29:37 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Jon Brisbin Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance on SUSE w/ reiserfs Message-ID: <20051010222937.GL5848@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: Jon Brisbin , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <434ADD46.5060206@npcinternational.com> <6247.1128981289@sss.pgh.pa.us> <434AE7FF.4000705@npcinternational.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <434AE7FF.4000705@npcinternational.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.10i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.341 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.435, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.374, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST=1.376, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.026] X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200510/179 X-Sequence-Number: 14947 Jon Brisbin wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > >Are you sure it's not cached data pages, rather than cached inodes? > >If so, the above behavior is *good*. > > > >People often have a mistaken notion that having near-zero free RAM means > >they have a problem. In point of fact, that is the way it is supposed > >to be (at least on Unix-like systems). This is just a reflection of the > >kernel doing what it is supposed to do, which is to use all spare RAM > >for caching recently accessed disk pages. If you're not swapping then > >you do not have a problem. > > Except for the fact that my Java App server crashes when all the > available memory is being used by caching and not reclaimed :-) Ah, so you have a different problem. What you should be asking is why the appserver crashes. You still seem to have a lot of free swap, judging by a nearby post. But maybe the problem is that the swap is completely used too, and so the OOM killer (is this Linux?) comes around and kills the appserver. Certainly the problem is not the caching. You should be monitoring when and why the appserver dies. -- Alvaro Herrera Architect, http://www.EnterpriseDB.com "On the other flipper, one wrong move and we're Fatal Exceptions" (T.U.X.: Term Unit X - http://www.thelinuxreview.com/TUX/)