Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89ACE37BFE3 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:29:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35931-03 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:29:52 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net (ptb-relay03.plus.net [212.159.14.147]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9267137BFB4 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:29:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [84.51.143.99] (helo=server3.office.archonet.com) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1KlJZF-0008Ju-Hi; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:29:49 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.36] (dell36.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.36]) by server3.office.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AF8D274091; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:29:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <48E4865F.3010807@archonet.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:29:19 +0100 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paul@wayr.org CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: dedicated server & postgresql 8.1 conf tunning References: <48E360D0.8080403@archonet.com> <6439bfe8d4afed3a360b906353c7e9e5@localhost> In-Reply-To: <6439bfe8d4afed3a360b906353c7e9e5@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Plusnet-Relay: 5fb6509bda6e41c679995838b563b95b X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/13 X-Sequence-Number: 31594 paul@wayr.org wrote: > Thanks, > > Unfornatly, i can't update pgsql to 8.3 since it's not in debian stable. That's why backports.org was invented :-) Or does can't mean "not allowed to"? > So i'm going to play with work_mem & shared_buffers. > > With big shared_buffers pgsql tells me > shmget(cle=5432001, taille=11183431680, 03600). > so i do "echo 13183431680 > /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax" ( 10Go + 2Go just > in case) > > but pgsql tells me again that it there's not enought shm.. > How can i compute the go shmmax for my server ? I'm not seeing anything terribly wrong there. Are you hitting a limit with shmall? Oh - and I'm not sure there's much point in having more shared-buffers than you have data. Try much larger work_mem first, I think that's the biggest gain for you. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd