On 03/08/2012 10:15 AM, Jochen Erwied wrote:
Shouldn't that be:
kernel.shmmax = 4294967296
kernel.shmmni = 4096
kernel.shmall = 1572864
Oops! Yes. That's definitely it. I'm too accustomed to having those set
automatically, and then setting these:
vm.swappiness = 0
vm.dirty_background_ratio
Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:24:25 PM you wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 03:07 PM, Craig James wrote:
>> echo 4294967296 >/proc/sys/kernel/shmmax # 4 GB shared memory
>> echo 4096 >/proc/sys/kernel/shmmni
>> echo 1572864 >/proc/sys/kernel/shmall # 6 GB max shared mem (block size
>> is 4096 bytes)
> For
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Ants Aasma wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> those numbers are stupendous for 8 drive sata. how much shared
>> buffers do you have?
>
> Couple of things to notice:
> 1) The benchmark can run fully in memory, although not 100% in sh
On 08/03/12, Ants Aasma (ants.aa...@eesti.ee) wrote:
> So regardless if the benchmark is a good representation of the target
> workload or not, it definitely isn't benchmarking the IO system.
At the risk of hijacking the thread I started, I'd be grateful for
comments on the following system IO re
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> those numbers are stupendous for 8 drive sata. how much shared
> buffers do you have?
Couple of things to notice:
1) The benchmark can run fully in memory, although not 100% in shared_buffers.
2) These are 100k transaction runs, meaning th
