[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
max_connections = 160
shared_buffers = 2048[Total = 2.5 Gb.]
sort_mem = 8192 [Total = 1280 Mb.]
vacuum_mem = 16384
effective_cache_size = 128897 [= 1007 Mb. = 1 Gb. ]
Will it be more suitable for my server than before?
I would keep shared_buffers in the 10
> >max_connections = 160
> >shared_buffers = 2048 [Total = 2.5 Gb.]
> >sort_mem = 8192 [Total = 1280 Mb.]
> >vacuum_mem = 16384
> >effective_cache_size = 128897 [= 1007 Mb. = 1 Gb. ]
> >Will it be more suitable for my server than before?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I would keep shared_buffers i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
max_connections = 160
shared_buffers = 2048[Total = 2.5 Gb.]
sort_mem = 8192 [Total = 1280 Mb.]
vacuum_mem = 16384
effective_cache_size = 128897 [= 1007 Mb. = 1 Gb. ]
Will it be more suitable for my server than before?
I would keep shared_buffers in the 1->
> The common wisdom of shared buffers is around 6-10% of available memory.
> Your proposal below is about 50% of memory.
>
> I'm not sure what the original numbers actually meant, they are quite large.
>
I will try to reduce shared buffer to 1536 [1.87 Mb].
> also effective cache is the sum of ker
The common wisdom of shared buffers is around 6-10% of available memory.
Your proposal below is about 50% of memory.
I'm not sure what the original numbers actually meant, they are quite large.
also effective cache is the sum of kernel buffers + shared_buffers so it
should be bigger than shared
> > postgresql 7.3.2-1 with RH 9 on a mechine of 2 Xeon 3.0 Ghz and ram of 4
> Gb.
>
> You may want to try disabling hyperthreading, if you don't mind
> rebooting.
Can you give me an idea why should I use the SMP kernel instead of Bigmen kernel
[turn off the hyperthreading]? Will it be better to t
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 09:54:32AM +0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> postgresql 7.3.2-1 with RH 9 on a mechine of 2 Xeon 3.0 Ghz and ram of 4 Gb.
You may want to try disabling hyperthreading, if you don't mind
rebooting.
> grew up to 3.5 Gb and there were more than 160 concurent connections.
Lo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I try to adjust my server for a couple of weeks with some sucess but it still
slow when the server has stress in the moring from many connection . I used
postgresql 7.3.2-1 with RH 9 on a mechine of 2 Xeon 3.0 Ghz and ram of 4 Gb.
Since 1 1/2 yr. when I started to use the d
