Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95C8632A66 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:16:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67710-07-3 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:15:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com (mail-gy0-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9767F633C8D for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:15:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: by gyg13 with SMTP id 13so3326387gyg.19 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=g/L92WPT2Tc+5XicArRSP7yexQIaRIT6MDJrQg9FDpA=; b=Y4P3EYNwxCXw7zTiijBrm+IW3SN1aCIo6X/ZqUnUWAlCMU9RZp+W5Z25ZYv96eh5cM Y7p4pQ1kMTnRNnKRP7W/8hFRE/Ix88XvXlroBHGGDWiq+wwkAlCvkG2G7Gi+gVaojkZU RT4y2FqpRuSyyRSnOiQxkUpkLWayv7Rkz8VJ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=iJrPaDmoif+JNWAuV27s5ojvNHuyVDAj48nmKZpXczvaqiDWFpGnHOiAb4fygBbbTc hzgPvCDqv8THnpfXoN9qDRqaTzq+cOmMyHGWrz1ixIdoZ3EP70+Dm5NWjvKfE4fjpcoj 0mqYMcyk5ENd72XIg7UUB9C0mXVmEMt0NqOOM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.218.9 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net> References: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:15:54 -0600 Received: by 10.150.167.1 with SMTP id p1mr7543895ybe.25.1271787354551; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? From: Scott Marlowe To: David Kerr Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.081 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.181, BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201004/247 X-Sequence-Number: 38497 On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, David Kerr wrote: > Howdy all, > > I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9. > 64bit OS. No users currently. What's your IO subsystem look like? What did vmstat actually say?