Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FFD9FA12F for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:36:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23719-01 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:35:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from lynet.oppetid.no (oppetid.no [80.65.51.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2499FA6AF for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:35:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: by lynet.oppetid.no (Postfix, from userid 1019) id C1FBE11AFAA; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:35:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:35:30 +0200 From: Tobias Brox To: "Jim C. Nasby" Cc: Tobias Brox , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Swappiness setting on a linux pg server Message-ID: <20061019163530.GC31916@oppetid.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: Group Nordicbet User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.135 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/406 X-Sequence-Number: 21535 [Jim C. Nasby - Thu at 10:28:31AM -0500] > I think it'd be much better to experiment with using much larger > shared_buffers settings. The conventional wisdom there is from 7.x days > when you really didn't want a large buffer, but that doesn't really > apply with the new buffer management we got in 8.0. I know of one site > that doubled their performance by setting shared_buffers to 50% of > memory. I've upped it a bit, but it would require a server restart to get the new setting into effect. This is relatively "expensive" for us. Does anyone else share the viewpoint of Nasby, and does anyone have recommendation for a good value? Our previous value was 200M, and I don't want to go to the extremes just yet. We have 6G of memory totally.