Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-25 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 09/25/2017 11:10 AM, Vladimir Mihailenco wrote: > Thanks again - for some reason I thought that each page should be > fsynced separately... > > I am running ZFS and going to try following config on 32gb server: > > shared_buffers = 512mb (previously was 6gb) > max_wal_size = 8gb > zfs_arc_ma

Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-25 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
Thanks again - for some reason I thought that each page should be fsynced separately... I am running ZFS and going to try following config on 32gb server: shared_buffers = 512mb (previously was 6gb) max_wal_size = 8gb zfs_arc_max = 24gb i.e. run with minimal shared buffers and do all the caching

Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-24 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 09/24/2017 11:03 AM, Vladimir Mihailenco wrote: > Thanks for your response. Ss I understand it now the difference is > that checkpoints are synchronous but dirty pages eviction from shared > buffers are asynchronous, correct? How then Postgres ensures that OS > writes data to the disk so WAL can

Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-24 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
Thanks for your response. Ss I understand it now the difference is that checkpoints are synchronous but dirty pages eviction from shared buffers are asynchronous, correct? How then Postgres ensures that OS writes data to the disk so WAL can be deleted? >WAL writes are asynchronous. Is there a typ

Re: [GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-23 Thread Tomas Vondra
Hi, On 09/23/2017 08:18 AM, Vladimir Mihailenco wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder what is the point of setting max WAL size bigger than shared > buffers, e.g. > > shared_buffers = 512mb > max_wal_size = 2gb > > As I understand a checkpoint happens after 2gb of data were modified > (writter to WAL), but

[GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-22 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
Hi, I wonder what is the point of setting max WAL size bigger than shared buffers, e.g. shared_buffers = 512mb max_wal_size = 2gb As I understand a checkpoint happens after 2gb of data were modified (writter to WAL), but shared buffers can contain at most 512mb of dirty pages to be flushed to th

[GENERAL] shared_buffers smaller than max_wal_size

2017-09-22 Thread Vladimir Mihailenco
Hi, I wonder what is the point of setting max WAL size bigger than shared buffers, e.g. shared_buffers = 512mb max_wal_size = 2gb As I understand a checkpoint happens after 2gb of data were modified (writter to WAL), but shared buffers can contain at most 512mb of dirty pages to be flushed to th