On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:42:21AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I know this is an old email, but have you tested larger shared buffers
> in CVS HEAD with Jan's new cache replacement policy?
Not yet. It's on our TODO list, for sure, because the consequences
of relying too much on the filesyste
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:11:17PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> > server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> > i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at t
Anjan Dave wrote:
Shared_buffers (25% of RAM / 8KB)) = 8589934592 * .25 / 8192 = 262144
250,000 is probably the max you can use due to the 2GB process limit
unless you recompile the Linux Kernel to use 3GB process/1GB kernel.
Yes, I've got 8GB also and I started at 262144 and kept working my way
So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the 64-bit
vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB barrier", and even
I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit vendors, then, are talking
about the limit on ram *per application* and not per machine?
64-bit CPU o
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 14:27, Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) wrote:
> > So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the
> > 64-bit vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB
> > barrier", and even I can do the
Scott,
> I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
I've found that that question makes the difference between using 6% & 12% ...
p
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 03:11:17PM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> I think where it makes sense is when you have something like a report
> server where the result sets may be huge, but the parellel load is load,
> i.e. 5 or 10 users tossing around 100 Meg or more at time.
In our case, we were noti
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:51:02AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > Of course, if you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, then the
> > only way to work this would be to have OSDL help us sort it out.
>
> Nope. I too have such anecdotal evidence
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:51:02AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Of course, if you have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, then the
> only way to work this would be to have OSDL help us sort it out.
Nope. I too have such anecdotal evidence that 25% is way too high.
It also seems to depend pretty
]
Sent: Tue 10/21/2003 1:33 PM
To: Josh Berkus
Cc: Anjan Dave; Richard Huxton; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning for mid-size server
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> An
]
Sent: Tue 10/21/2003 1:22 PM
To: Anjan Dave; Richard Huxton; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning for mid-size server
Anjan,
> From what I know, there is a cache-row-set functionality that doesn't
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Berkus) wrote:
> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the
> 64-bit vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB
> barrier", and even I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit
> vendors, then, are talking a
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:12:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM?
> ... Remember that, back in the old days on the
> pre-386s, accessing the extended or expanded memory (anyone remember
> which was whi
Andrew,
> I think the "25%" rule of thumb is slightly stale: above some
> threshold, it just falls apart, and lots of people now have machines
> well within that threshold. Heck, I'll bet Bruce's 2-way machine is
> within that threshold.
Sure. But we had a few people on this list do tests (incl
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the "25%" rule of thumb is slightly stale: above some
> threshold, it just falls apart, and lots of people now have machines
> well within that threshold. Heck, I'll bet Bruce's 2-way machine is
> within that threshold.
IIRC, we've not seen mu
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 10:12:15 -0700
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the
> 64-bit vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB
> barrier", and even I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit
> vendors, then, are ta
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:15:57AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > I read an article that suggests you 'start' with 25% of memory for
> > shared_buffers. Sort memory was suggested to be at 2-4%. Here's the
> > link:
> > http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/node8.html
>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 10:12:15AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> So what is the ceiling on 32-bit processors for RAM? Most of the 64-bit
> vendors are pushing Athalon64 and G5 as "breaking the 4GB barrier", and even
> I can do the math on 2^32. All these 64-bit vendors, then, are talking
> ab
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > From what I know, there is a cache-row-set functionality that doesn't
> > exist with the newer postgres...
>
> What? PostgreSQL has always used the kernel cache for queries.
>
> > Concurrent users will start from 1 to a high of 5000 or mor
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
> > performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.
>
> True.
>
> > Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
> > time now, and so has the linux kerne
Anjan,
> From what I know, there is a cache-row-set functionality that doesn't
> exist with the newer postgres...
What? PostgreSQL has always used the kernel cache for queries.
> Concurrent users will start from 1 to a high of 5000 or more, and could
> ramp up rapidly. So far, with increased us
Anjan,
> I read an article that suggests you 'start' with 25% of memory for
> shared_buffers. Sort memory was suggested to be at 2-4%. Here's the
> link:
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/momjian/hw_performance/node8.html
> Maybe, I misinterpreted it.
No, I can see how you arrived at that concl
Scott,
> Also, if it's a read only environment, RAID5 with n drives equals the
> performance of RAID0 with n-1 drives.
True.
> Josh, you gotta get out more. IA32 has supported >4 gig ram for a long
> time now, and so has the linux kernel. It uses a paging method to do it.
> Individual processe
se lateron if needed.
Thanks,
Anjan
-Original Message-
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:21 PM
To: Anjan Dave; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning for mid-size server
Anjan,
> Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Gh
n and max (recommended
by Sun) - on the app side.
Thanks,
Anjan
-Original Message-
From: Richard Huxton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:57 AM
To: Anjan Dave; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Tuning for mid-size server
On Tuesday 21 October 2003
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anjan,
>
> > Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> > internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
>
> How many drives? RAID5 sucks for heavy read-write databases, unless you have
> 5+ dri
Anjan,
> Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
How many drives? RAID5 sucks for heavy read-write databases, unless you have
5+ drives. Or a large battery-backed cache.
Also, last I ch
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 15:28, Anjan Dave wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with
> internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
You'll want to upgrade PG to v7.3.4
> I am planning for these values for the postgres co
Title: Tuning for mid-size server
Hi,
Pretty soon, a PowerEdge 6650 with 4 x 2Ghz XEONs, and 8GB Memory, with internal drives on RAID5 will be delivered. Postgres will be from RH8.0.
I am planning for these values for the postgres configuration - to begin with:
Shared_buffers (25% of RAM
29 matches
Mail list logo
