pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be>
To: Strahinja Kustudić <strahinjak@nordeus.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:52:34 +0200
Message-ID: <50753752.6080300@ulb.ac.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADKbJJW8jEMwFQDXTZzqupckgyVvZ6Jbx2-EXO8o-rtX+_91FQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADKbJJUTr9ZWkbajR-7_6qaAsWH0=09=2AMo67C_Az-raKZE4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<50752DB2.6060004@ulb.ac.be>
	<CADKbJJW8jEMwFQDXTZzqupckgyVvZ6Jbx2-EXO8o-rtX+_91FQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/10/2012 10:30, Strahinja Kustudić wrote:
> Thanks for very fast replies everyone :)
>
> @Laurenz I know that effective cache size is only used for the query 
> planner, what I was saying is that if I tell it that it can have 90GB 
> cached items, that is not trues, since the OS and Postgres process 
> itself can take more than 6GB, which would mean 90GB is not the 
> correct value, but if effective_cache size should be 
> shared_buffers+page cache as Tomas said, than 90GB, won't be a problem.
>
>
> @Tomas here are the values:
>
> # cat /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
> 60
> # cat  /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory
> 0
> # cat  /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio
> 50
>
> I will turn of swappiness, I was meaning to do that, but I don't know 
> much about the overcommit settings, I will read what they do.
>
>
> @Julien thanks for the suggestions, I will tweak them like you suggested.
>

also with 15k SCSI you can reduce random_page_cost to 3.5 (instead of 4.0)
I also recommend to raise cpu_tuple_cost to 0.05 (instead of 0.01), set 
vm.swappiness to 0, vm.overcommit_memory to 2, and finally raise the 
read-ahead (something like 8192)

> Strahinja Kustudić| System Engineer | Nordeus
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be 
> <mailto:jcigar@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/10/2012 09:12, Strahinja Kustudić wrote:
>
>         Hi everyone,
>
>
>     Hello,
>
>
>
>         I have a Postgresql 9.1 dedicated server with 16 cores, 96GB
>         RAM and RAID10 15K SCSI drives which is runing Centos 6.2 x64.
>         This server is mainly used for inserting/updating large
>         amounts of data via copy/insert/update commands, and seldom
>         for running select queries.
>
>         Here are the relevant configuration parameters I changed:
>
>         shared_buffers = 10GB
>
>
>     Generally going over 4GB for shared_buffers doesn't help.. some of
>     the overhead of bgwriter and checkpoints is more or less linear in
>     the size of shared_buffers ..
>
>         effective_cache_size = 90GB
>
>
>     effective_cache_size should be ~75% of the RAM (if it's a
>     dedicated server)
>
>         work_mem = 32MB
>
>
>     with 96GB of RAM I would raise default work_mem to something like
>     128MB
>
>         maintenance_work_mem = 512MB
>
>
>     again, with 96GB of ram you can raise maintenance_work_mem to
>     something like 4GB
>
>
>         checkpoint_segments = 64
>         checkpoint_completion_target = 0.8
>
>         My biggest concern are shared_buffers and
>         effective_cache_size, should I increase shared_buffers and
>         decrease effective_cache_size? I read that values above 10GB
>         for shared_buffers give lower performance, than smaller amounts?
>
>         free is currently reporting (during the loading of data):
>
>         $ free -m
>         total used free shared buffers cached
>         Mem: 96730 96418 311 0 71 93120
>         -/+ buffers/cache: 3227 93502
>         Swap: 21000 51 20949
>
>         So it did a little swapping, but only minor, still I should
>         probably decrease shared_buffers so there is no swapping at all.
>
>         Thanks in advance,
>         Strahinja
>
>
>     Julien
>
>
>     -- 
>     No trees were killed in the creation of this message.
>     However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
>
>
>
>     --
>     Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
>     (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>     <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>)
>     To make changes to your subscription:
>     http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>
>


-- 
No trees were killed in the creation of this message.
However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Attachments:

jcigar.vcf (text/x-vcard, 304B) download begin:vcard fn:Julien Cigar n:Cigar;Julien org;quoted-printable:Belgian Biodiversity Platform;ULB (Universit=C3=A9 Libre de Bruxelles) adr:;;;Brussels;;;Belgium email;internet:jcigar@ulb.ac.be tel;work:+32(0)26505752 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.biodiversity.be version:2.1 end:vcard

view thread (34+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <50753752.6080300@ulb.ac.be>
Permalink:  ../50753752.6080300@ulb.ac.be/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/50753752.6080300@ulb.ac.be

 · 

reply

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: jcigar@ulb.ac.be, strahinjak@nordeus.com
  Subject: Re: shared_buffers/effective_cache_size on 96GB server
  In-Reply-To: <50753752.6080300@ulb.ac.be>

* 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