Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 502C665105E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:03:26 -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 23299-07 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:03:15 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com (web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com
	[216.252.111.81])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A9B3651024
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:03:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail 90225 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jul 2008 12:03:13 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
	h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID;
	b=ffRB0S+vecftrRV66+kwzZBnOfY2SXtejBeyQmY0dQfiUWNZzB1eGw92Qpjs9ttW11fe8Nery+g0g3OE+iLlFi0Q/42/TmFthzlAM9R1tMxgIQ1Ixe72082zhY9BmtdvvJA7daw4rJ886FMhBUxR63+qF68AFpURBM+vn8W27EE=;
Received: from [98.166.112.215] by web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:03:13 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1042.40 YahooMailWebService/0.7.218
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jessica Richard <rjessil@yahoo.com>
Subject: best starting point...
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-262890827-1215864193=:89924"
Message-ID: <634968.89924.qm@web56402.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200807/116
X-Sequence-Number: 30716

--0-262890827-1215864193=:89924
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On a new system with 64G memory, what is the best starting points for shmmax on OS and shared_buffers for Postgres. All databases combined are about 50G.

I want to evaluate this with the two following scenarios:

1. this machine is running only  Postgres, no other applications

2. this machine has postgres plus some other things (such as web server, etc).

What are the dangers for shmmax and shared_buffers to be confiugred very big for each of the two scenarios?

In case #1, if shmmax = 63G and shared_buffers = 50G, can it speed up Postgres (loading almost all dbs into memeory)? 

Thanks,
Jessica



      
--0-262890827-1215864193=:89924
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div>On a new system with 64G memory, what is the best starting points for shmmax on OS and shared_buffers for Postgres. All databases combined are about 50G.<br><br>I want to evaluate this with the two following scenarios:<br><br>1. this machine is running only&nbsp; Postgres, no other applications<br><br>2. this machine has postgres plus some other things (such as web server, etc).<br><br>What are the dangers for shmmax and shared_buffers to be confiugred very big for each of the two scenarios?<br><br>In case #1, if shmmax = 63G and shared_buffers = 50G, can it speed up Postgres (loading almost all dbs into memeory)? <br><br>Thanks,<br>Jessica<br></div></div><br>

      </body></html>
--0-262890827-1215864193=:89924--