Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU?
От | Justin Clift |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3B4CBC2C.53E8187B@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Performance tuning for linux, 1GB RAM, dual CPU? (Christian Bucanac <christian.bucanac@mindark.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi Adam, There are a few links to benchmark-type things you might find useful at : http://techdocs.postgresql.org/oresources.php#benchmark Hope they're useful. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Adam Manock wrote: > > >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. > > I decided to start high on buffers because of Bruce's: > http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/hw_performance/ > From that I get the impression that operations using kernel disk buffer > cache are considerably more expensive than if the data was in shared > buffer cache, and that increasing PG's memory usage until the system > is almost using swap is The Right Thing To Do. Has anyone got real > world test data to confirm or refute this?? > If not, then I am going to need to find or create a benchmarking program > to load down PG against a fake multi-gigabyte "production" database. > Or I could wait a week to see what RedHat does to tune their > implementation of PG :-) > > Adam > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: