Re: Tuning for mid-size server
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Tuning for mid-size server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200310210920.44890.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Tuning for mid-size server ("Anjan Dave" <adave@vantage.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Tuning for mid-size server
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Anjan, > Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with > internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0. How many drives? RAID5 sucks for heavy read-write databases, unless you have 5+ drives. Or a large battery-backed cache. Also, last I checked, you can't address 8GB of RAM without a 64-bit processor. Since when are the Xeons 64-bit? > Shared_buffers (25% of RAM / 8KB)) = 8589934592 * .25 / 8192 = 262144 That's too high. Cut it in half at least. Probably down to 5% of available RAM. > Sort_mem (4% of RAM / 1KB) = 335544. We'll take about half of that - > 167772 Fine if you're running a few-user-large-operation database. If this is a webserver, you want a much, much lower value. > Effective_cache_size = 262144 (same as shared_buffers - 25%) Much too low. Where did you get these calculations, anyway? > In a generic sense, these are recommended values I found in some > documents. Where? We need to contact the author of the "documents" and tell them to correct things. > joins, orderby, groupby clauses. The web application is based on > Apache/Resin and hotspot JVM 1.4.0. You'll need to estimate the memory consumed by Java & Apache to have realistic figures to work with. > Are the above settings ok to begin with? Are there any other parameters > that I should configure now, or monitor lateron? No, they're not. See: http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html to tune these parameters. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: