On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> One thing to watch is the size of the filesystem cache. Generally as the
> system comes under memory pressure you will see the cache shrink. Not sure
> what is happening on your system, but typically when it gets down to some
> minimal siz
On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> Thanks David and I have and in fact I do see spikes that would cause
> my system to run out of memory, but one thing I'm struggling with is
> my system always runs at the limit. It's the nature of linux to take
> all the memory and manage it.
One
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
> Are you sure it is a PAE kernel ? You look limited to 4GB.
If my memory/knowledge serves me right, PAE doesn't remove that limit.
PAE allows more processes, and they can use more memory together, but
one process alone has to live within a
2011/4/22 Tory M Blue :
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Cédric Villemain
> wrote:
>
>>> CommitLimit: 4128760 kB
>>> Committed_AS: 2380408 kB
>>
>> Are you sure it is a PAE kernel ? You look limited to 4GB.
>
> Figured that the Commitlimit is actually the size of swap, so on one
> server
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
>> CommitLimit: 4128760 kB
>> Committed_AS: 2380408 kB
>
> Are you sure it is a PAE kernel ? You look limited to 4GB.
Figured that the Commitlimit is actually the size of swap, so on one
server it's 4gb and the other it's 5gb.
So s
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 11:15 AM, David Rees wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>> this is a Fedora 12 system, 2.6.32.23-170. I've been reading and
>> appears this is yet another fedora bug, but so far I have not found
>> any concrete evidence on how to fix it.
>
> If it
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> this is a Fedora 12 system, 2.6.32.23-170. I've been reading and
> appears this is yet another fedora bug, but so far I have not found
> any concrete evidence on how to fix it.
If it's a "fedora" bug, it's most likely related to the kernel whe
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
> 2011/4/22 Cédric Villemain :
>> Are you sure it is a PAE kernel ? You look limited to 4GB.
>>
>> I don't know atm if overcommit_ratio=0 has a special meaning, else I
>> would suggest to update it to something like 40% (the default), but
2011/4/22 Cédric Villemain :
> 2011/4/22 Tory M Blue :
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Cédric Villemain
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/4/21 Tory M Blue :
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>> Fedora 12
>> 32g
2011/4/22 Tory M Blue :
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Cédric Villemain
> wrote:
>> 2011/4/21 Tory M Blue :
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>>
> Fedora 12
> 32gig memory, 8 proc
> postgres 8.4.4,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>> I appreciate the totally no postgres responses with this.
>
> I didn't understand that. What do you mean?
>
> -Kevin
I meant that when starting to talk about kernel commit limits/ etc,
it's not really postgres cent
Tory M Blue wrote:
> I appreciate the totally no postgres responses with this.
I didn't understand that. What do you mean?
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-pe
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
> 2011/4/21 Tory M Blue :
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>
Fedora 12
32gig memory, 8 proc
postgres 8.4.4, slony 1.20
5 gigs of swap (ne
2011/4/21 Tory M Blue :
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>>> Fedora 12
>>> 32gig memory, 8 proc
>>> postgres 8.4.4, slony 1.20
>>> 5 gigs of swap (never hit it!)
>>
>> curious: using 32/64 bit postgres? what are your
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>
>>> While I don't mind the occasional slap of reality. This configuration
>>> has run for 4+ years. It's possible that as many
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Scott Marlowe
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>>
>>> While I don't mind the occasional slap of reality. This configuration
>>> has run for 4+ years. It's possible that as many
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Just because you've been walking around with a gun pointing at your
> head without it going off does not mean walking around with a gun
> pointing at your head is a good idea.
+1
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performanc
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>
>> While I don't mind the occasional slap of reality. This configuration
>> has run for 4+ years. It's possible that as many other components each
>> fedora release is worse then the pri
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> While I don't mind the occasional slap of reality. This configuration
> has run for 4+ years. It's possible that as many other components each
> fedora release is worse then the priors.
How many of those 300 max connections do you generally
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> While I don't mind the occasional slap of reality. This configuration
> has run for 4+ years. It's possible that as many other components each
> fedora release is worse then the priors.
I'd say you've been lucky.
You must be running overnight
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>> # - Checkpoints -
>> checkpoint_segments = 100
>> max_connections = 300
>> shared_buffers = 2500MB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
>> max_prepared_transactions = 0
>> work_mem
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> # - Checkpoints -
> checkpoint_segments = 100
> max_connections = 300
> shared_buffers = 2500MB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
> max_prepared_transactions = 0
> work_mem = 100MB
> maintenance_work_mem = 128MB
> fsync = on
That's an
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> There's probably something else that's trying to grab all the memory and
>> then tries to use it and PG ends up getting nailed because the kernel
>> over-attributes memory to it.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
>> Fedora 12
>> 32gig memory, 8 proc
>> postgres 8.4.4, slony 1.20
>> 5 gigs of swap (never hit it!)
>
> curious: using 32/64 bit postgres? what are your postgresql.conf
> memory settings
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Tory M Blue wrote:
> Is there anyone that could help me understand why all of a sudden with
> no noticeable change in data, no change in hardware, no change in OS,
> I'm seeing postmaster getting killed by oom_killer?
>
> The dmesg shows that swap has not been touc
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>
>> There's probably something else that's trying to grab all the memory and
>> then tries to use it and PG ends up getting nailed because the kernel
>> over-attributes memory to it.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> There's probably something else that's trying to grab all the memory and
> then tries to use it and PG ends up getting nailed because the kernel
> over-attributes memory to it. You should be looking for that other
> process..
Not only tha
* Tory M Blue (tmb...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Is there anyone that could help me understand why all of a sudden with
> no noticeable change in data, no change in hardware, no change in OS,
> I'm seeing postmaster getting killed by oom_killer?
You would really be best off just turning off the oom_kille
Funny concidence, I was just reading up a blog post on postgres an OOM killer.
http://gentooexperimental.org/~patrick/weblog/archives/2011-04.html#e2011-04-20T21_58_37.txt
Hope this helps.
2011/4/21 Tory M Blue :
> Is there anyone that could help me understand why all of a sudden with
> no notic
Is there anyone that could help me understand why all of a sudden with
no noticeable change in data, no change in hardware, no change in OS,
I'm seeing postmaster getting killed by oom_killer?
The dmesg shows that swap has not been touched free and total are the
same, so this system is not running
30 matches
Mail list logo
