Hsien-Wen Chu writes:
> as my known, FreeBSD implements this feature called superpage, it's similar
> with Solaris, so is it enabled in default? or any default parameter need to
> be set?
The Solaris-specific code is just that if SHM_SHARE_MMU is defined (by
, I think) we include it in the flags
as my known, FreeBSD implements this feature called superpage, it's similar
with Solaris, so is it enabled in default? or any default parameter need to
be set?
Many thank
Hsien-Wen
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM, d
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:10:22PM -0700, David Gould wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:16:27AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM, daveg wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > >> On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> > >> >
>
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:16:27AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM, daveg wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> >> On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >shmget and friends are hugetlbpage aware, so it seems it s
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM, daveg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >shmget and friends are hugetlbpage aware, so it seems it should 'just
>> >work'.
>> >
>>
>> Heh - provided you specify
>>
>> SHM_
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM, daveg wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:28:25PM -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> > I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes
>>> > have been fo
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:28:25PM -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes
> > have been forked if you're reusing them beyond perhaps slightly more
> > efficient cache usage.
>
> Hm, this site claims t
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:47 PM, daveg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:28:25PM -0700, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> > I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes
>> > have been forked if you're reusing them beyond perhaps slightly more
>>
Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of mié oct 20 16:28:25 -0300 2010:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes
> > have been forked if you're reusing them beyond perhaps slightly more
> > efficient cache usage.
>
> Hm, this sit
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> I don't think it's a big cost once all the processes
> have been forked if you're reusing them beyond perhaps slightly more
> efficient cache usage.
Hm, this site claims to get a 13% win just from the reduced tlb misses
using a preload hack wi
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I believe that for the equivalent Solaris option, we just automatically
> enable it when available. So there'd be no need for user documentation.
> However, I definitely *would* like to see some benchmarks proving that
> the change actually does
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:10:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM, daveg wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> >>> Heh - provided you specify
> >>> SHM_HUGETLB
> >>> in the relevant call that is :-)
>
> >>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM, daveg wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>> Heh - provided you specify
>>> SHM_HUGETLB
>>> in the relevant call that is :-)
>> I had a patch for this against 8.3 that I could update if there is any
>>
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM, daveg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >shmget and friends are hugetlbpage aware, so it seems it should 'just
>> >work'.
>> >
>>
>> Heh - provided you specify
>>
>> SHM
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 04:08:37PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> >
> >
> >shmget and friends are hugetlbpage aware, so it seems it should 'just
> >work'.
> >
>
> Heh - provided you specify
>
> SHM_HUGETLB
>
>
> in the relevant call that is :-)
I had
On 20/10/10 16:05, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
shmget and friends are hugetlbpage aware, so it seems it should 'just
work'.
Heh - provided you specify
SHM_HUGETLB
in the relevant call that is :-)
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your s
On 20/10/10 15:10, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Hsien-Wen Chu wrote:
I want to use hugepage function on Linux platform, my question is if
PostgreSQL supports hugepage in default, if not, what's the code need to be
modified?
Unfortunately, I don't think this is
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Hsien-Wen Chu wrote:
> I want to use hugepage function on Linux platform, my question is if
> PostgreSQL supports hugepage in default, if not, what's the code need to be
> modified?
Unfortunately, I don't think this is too simple. PostgreSQL uses sysv
shared memo
Dear All
I want to use hugepage function on Linux platform, my question is if
PostgreSQL supports hugepage in default, if not, what's the code need to be
modified?
Thank you for your greate support
Hsien-Wen
19 matches
Mail list logo
