I wish the solution was that simple. I rent the zone and that is my
providers cap.
On 2-Nov-09, at 5:21 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Brooks Lyrette > wrote:
Thanks for all the help guys.
So this is what I get from all this. My solaris zone will cap me at
around
9
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Brooks Lyrette wrote:
> I wish the solution was that simple. I rent the zone and that is my
> providers cap.
Am I misunderstanding this? You rent an image with 32Gigs of ram.
Your provider limits you to any single process / application being 1G
total by a cap? Th
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Brooks Lyrette wrote:
> Thanks for all the help guys.
> So this is what I get from all this. My solaris zone will cap me at around
> 900M-1000M RSS memory. Therefore using the math from a pervious reply I can
> only have about 23 connections to my database without m
Thanks for all the help guys.
So this is what I get from all this. My solaris zone will cap me at
around 900M-1000M RSS memory. Therefore using the math from a pervious
reply I can only have about 23 connections to my database without
maxing out the machines memory?
This seems a little lo
Greg Smith writes:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What's the platform exactly? Is it possible that the postmaster is
>> being launched under very restrictive ulimit settings?
> Now that Brooks mentioned this being run inside of a Solaris zone, seems
> like this might be running into
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Greg Stark wrote:
PID USERNAME LWP PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND
5069 postgres 1 52 0 167M 20M sleep 0:04 13.50% postgres
Hm, well 400 processes if each were taking 190M would be 76G. But that
doesn't really make much sense since most of
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
What's the platform exactly? Is it possible that the postmaster is
being launched under very restrictive ulimit settings?
Now that Brooks mentioned this being run inside of a Solaris zone, seems
like this might be running into some memory upper limit cont
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Brooks Lyrette
wrote:
> The machine is running a moderate load. This is running on a Solaris Zone.
>
> Memory: 32G phys mem, 942M free mem, 76G swap, 74G free swap
>
> PID USERNAME LWP PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND
> 5069 postgres 1 52
There should be no other processes running, this system is dedicated
to running postgresql.
Max connections is configured to: max_connections = 400
Brooks L.
On 28-Oct-09, at 3:46 PM, Thom Brown wrote:
2009/10/28 Brooks Lyrette :
Hello All,
I'm new to postgres and it seem
The machine is running a moderate load. This is running on a Solaris
Zone.
Top is showing:
load averages: 2.49, 4.00, 3.78;up
124
+
12
:
24
:
47
Brooks Lyrette writes:
> I'm new to postgres and it seems my server is unable to fork new
> connections.
> LOG: could not fork new process for connection: Not enough space
For what I suppose is a lightly loaded machine, that is just plain
weird. What's the platform exactly? Is it possible t
2009/10/28 Brooks Lyrette :
> There should be no other processes running, this system is dedicated to
> running postgresql.
>
> Max connections is configured to: max_connections = 400
>
Well it sounds like you've somehow run out of swap space. Are you
able to run top and sort by resident memory a
2009/10/28 Brooks Lyrette :
> Hello All,
>
> I'm new to postgres and it seems my server is unable to fork new
> connections.
>
> Here is the log:
>
> LOG: could not fork new process for connection: Not enough space
> LOG: could not fork new process for connection: Not enough space
> TopMemoryCont
13 matches
Mail list logo
