Re: Amazon High I/O instances
От | Sébastien Lorion |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Amazon High I/O instances |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAGa5y0Psx==wGM_1jSkq2KTZfswmaWbu_-NH7CCp9Og5QEgGjw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Amazon High I/O instances (Sébastien Lorion <sl@thestrangefactory.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Amazon High I/O instances
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Is dedicating 2 drives for WAL too much ? Since my whole raid is comprised of SSD drives, should I just put it in the main pool ?
Sébastien
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Sébastien Lorion <sl@thestrangefactory.com> wrote:
Ok, make sense .. I will update that as well and report back. Thank you for your advice.SébastienOn Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:On 09/12/12 4:49 PM, Sébastien Lorion wrote:I think those 25% rules were typically created when ram was no more than 4-8GB.You set shared_buffers way below what is suggested in Greg Smith book (25% or more of RAM) .. what is the rationale behind that rule of thumb ? Other values are more or less what I set, though I could lower the effective_cache_size and vfs.zfs.arc_max and see how it goes.
for our highly transactional workload, at least, too large of a shared_buffers seems to slow us down, perhaps due to higher overhead of managing that many 8k buffers. I've heard other read-mostly workloads, such as data warehousing, can take advantage of larger buffer counts.
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: