X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48C49FA372 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:54:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51799-10 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:53:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A417D9FA509 for ; Fri, 5 May 2006 11:53:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.51.88]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IYS009HQS1RM3V2@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 09:53:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4596EC9D for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:53:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath.home.mathom.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ktcjw+MI436t for ; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7308D6ECAC; Fri, 05 May 2006 10:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 10:53:48 -0400 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Memory and/or cache issues? In-reply-to: <0C4841B42F87D51195BD00B0D020F5CB044B2614@MORPHEUS> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20060505145346.GJ16533@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mathom.us X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 References: <0C4841B42F87D51195BD00B0D020F5CB044B2614@MORPHEUS> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/117 X-Sequence-Number: 18904 On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 10:45:21AM -0400, mcelroy, tim wrote: >Thanks Michael. Are you saying the 'used' column is the irrelevant number? >Is the number that is more pertinent is 1416880? Is that the actual amount >of memory in use? Yes. >I agree about the allocation of a bogus amount of memory >but the issue occurred after-hours when the application(s) were not running. >Or are you saying the app whacked the DB during the day and never recovered? I have no idea why the bogus memory allocation happened. If it continues to happen you might have data corruption on disk. If it never happens again, it could have been cosmic rays. Mike Stone