From: Carlo Stonebanks <stonec.register@sympatico.ca>
To: 'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:57:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4F731254987542AF807CA3EDF411D12B@serenity> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <fbkn5d$cfq$1@news.hub.org>
<20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org>
>> Large shared_buffers and Windows do not mix. Perhaps you should leave
the shmem config low, so that the kernel can cache the file pages.
<<
Is there a problem BESIDES the one that used to cause windows to fail to
allocate memory in blocks larger than 1.5GB?
The symptom of this problem was that postgresql would just refuse to
restart. Microsoft released a patch for this problem and we can now start
postgresql with larger shared buffers. If this is indeed the problem that
you refer to - and it has indeed been solved by Microsoft - is there a down
side to this?
>> It sounds like you will need a huge lot of vacuuming effort to keep up.
Maybe you should lower autovac scale factors so that your tables are
visited more frequently. A vacuum_delay of 40 sounds like too much
though.
<<
Does autovacuum not impede performance while it is vacuuming a table?
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: stonec.register@sympatico.ca, alvherre@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM
In-Reply-To: <4F731254987542AF807CA3EDF411D12B@serenity>
* 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