Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU?
От | Tatsuo Ishii |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20010712134958W.t-ishii@sra.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
> Christian Bucanac <christian.bucanac@mindark.com> writes: > >> I am going to try 768M (98304) for buffers and 6144 (6144 * 32 = 192M) > >> for sort mem. This way with the DB server serving a max of 32 application > >> servers the kernel and other processes should still have the last 64Mb RAM. > > This is almost certainly a lousy idea. You do *not* want to chew up all > available memory for PG shared buffers; you should leave a good deal of > space for kernel-level disk buffers. > > Other fallacies in the above: (1) you're assuming the SortMem parameter > applies once per backend, which is not the case (it's once per sort or > hash step in a query, which could be many times per backend); (2) you're > not allowing *anything* for any space usage other than shared disk > buffers and sort memory. > > The rule of thumb I recommend is to use (at most) a quarter of real RAM > for shared disk buffers. I don't have hard measurements to back that > up, but I think it's a lot more reasonable as a starting point than > three-quarters of RAM. In my testing with *particluar* environment (Linux kernel 2.2.x, pgbench), it was indicated that too many shared buffers reduced the performance even though there was lots of memory, say 1GB. I'm not sure why, but I suspect there is a siginificant overhead to lookup shared buffers. -- Tatsuo Ishii
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: