On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 06:53:06PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> > Let's make this simple, on i386 you have 1G per process. Adding all the
> > numbers up, you have to stay below this limit.
>
> That's quite an oversimplification. For starters,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> Let's make this simple, on i386 you have 1G per process. Adding all the
> numbers up, you have to stay below this limit.
That's quite an oversimplification. For starters, we're talking about
shm, which doesn't count against your 1GB. The st
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 04:38:08PM -0700, Jeff Ross wrote:
> Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:13:45PM -0700, Jeff Ross wrote:
> >>I have searched (and searched) so I wonder if I'm running into the
> >>i386 1GB limit I see referenced, as in the thread today about fsck
> >>on larger
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Jeff Ross wrote:
> max_connections = 200 # pgtune wizard 2010-01-27
Silly question, but have you tried any kind of connection pooling? If
you can drop max_connections down you can reduce the shared memory
footprint postgresql has.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Bret S. Lambert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:55:29PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
>> Shm shouldn't be mapped in the kernel, so large values won't be that
>> bad.
>
> But the way that shared mem is implemented means that larger
> values require a larger malloc(9
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:55:29PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Shm shouldn't be mapped in the kernel, so large values won't be that
> bad.
But the way that shared mem is implemented means that larger
values require a larger malloc(9), which can increase the
pressure on kva space, which can panic y
Shm shouldn't be mapped in the kernel, so large values won't be that
bad.
On Jan 27, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:13:45PM -0700, Jeff Ross wrote:
I have searched (and searched) so I wonder if I'm running into the
i386 1GB limit I see referenced, as in the
Tobias Ulmer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:13:45PM -0700, Jeff Ross wrote:
I have searched (and searched) so I wonder if I'm running into the
i386 1GB limit I see referenced, as in the thread today about fsck
on larger partitions.
Yes you do. Also, kernel memory is limited, insane shm valu
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:13:45PM -0700, Jeff Ross wrote:
> I have searched (and searched) so I wonder if I'm running into the
> i386 1GB limit I see referenced, as in the thread today about fsck
> on larger partitions.
Yes you do. Also, kernel memory is limited, insane shm value will
probably (h
9 matches
Mail list logo
