Hello,

  The postgres setup I'm referring here is the same that Dave Logan
replied about earlier, fyi.  We have no postgres experts on staff,
just Dave and I, and we do what we can.  As of 7.4, unbounded growth
problems have gone away and with some trial and error, we've not had
any major database-induced issues in some time.



> I have set my shared memory space at 512M, I would like to
> go to more, but PostgreSQL doesn't seem to do anything with
> the extra RAM.  

# cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmall
16777216
# cat /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax
67108864


> Admittedly it seems like some of the selects that dbmail
> does take quite a long time to return.  One of the worst is
> the dbmail-util check for incorrect is_header flag.  That
> seems to take about 3 hours.  I don't think it's ever found
> a problem looking in my log, so should I not bother to do this?

  I'm pretty sure that's intended to be a run-once type feature for
upgrading from a previous dbmail install that didn't support is_header.
All new messages that get inserted should have that set properly.


> What are you setting your shared_buffers at (mine is 40000)?

shared_buffers = 3072 

> Do you modify any of the items like FSM and such in the config?

Yes; if you're having to run vacuum full to reclaim space, you
probably need to increase fsm settings and/or vacuum more frequently.
We have:

max_fsm_relations = 100
max_fsm_pages = 5000000


  A few other comments:  if you're comfortable running development
releases, 2.1 should give you better performance.  Also, Dave tracked
down a specific pop3 UPDATE query that was inducing a huge load on
our system that I believe was fixed in at least 2.1 svn, if not all
three branches.  You might update to the latest svn (in 2.0 or 2.1),
and see if this issue still exists (check the source, level 5 logs
or postgres log for what updates are being run).  Refer to this thread:

http://mailman.fastxs.net/pipermail/dbmail-dev/2005-October/007594.html

and this bug:

http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/view.php?id=278



-- 
Jesse Norell - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kentec Communications, Inc.

Reply via email to