From: Ulrich <ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:24:18 +0200
Message-ID: <48C035E2.3070407@gmx.net> (raw)
Hi,
I have a virtual server with 256 MB of RAM. I am using it as a
webserver, mailserver and for postgres. So there is something like 150MB
left for postgres.
Here are my configs (I haven't benchmarked...)
max_connections = 12 (I think, I will not have more parallel
connections, because I only have 10 PHP worker threads)
shared_buffers = 24MB
work_mem = 1MB
maintenance_work_mem = 16MB
(effective_cache_size = 80MB)
Normally, the file-cache is part of the free ram. But on my virtual
server, it looks like if there is one big file cache for the whole
hardware node and I do not have my own reserved cached, so it is not
easy to find a good value for effective_cache_size.
I've also benchmarked the file-cache using dd (100MB file)
1. Read from HDD:
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 8.38522 seconds, 12.5 MB/s
2. Read from Cache:
104857600 bytes (105 MB) copied, 3.48694 seconds, 30.1 MB/s
That is really really slow (10 times slower than on my other machine).
What would you do now? Increasing shared_buffers to 100MB and setting
effective_cache_size to 0MB? Or increasing effective_cache_size, too?
Thanks for help.
Regards,
-Ulrich
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: ulrich.mierendorff@gmx.net
Subject: Re: More shared_buffers instead of effective_cache_size?
In-Reply-To: <48C035E2.3070407@gmx.net>
* 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