On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Peter Schuller wrote:
Am I interpreting that correctly in that dirty buffers need to be
flushed to disk at checkpoints? That makes perfect sense - but why would
that not be the case with OS buffers?
All the dirty buffers in the cache are written out as part of the
checkp
> PostgreSQL only uses direct I/O for writing to the WAL; everything else
> goes through the regular OS buffer cache unless you force it to do
> otherwise at the OS level (like some Solaris setups do with
> forcedirectio). This is one reason it still make not make sense to give
> an extremely high
On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:37:10 -0600
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(welll, forced
to) migrate to a new system with a sane drive configuration. The
old set up was done horribly by a sysadm
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Peter Schuller wrote:
Or is it a matter of PostgreSQL doing non-direct I/O, such that
anything cached in shared_buffers will also be cached by the OS?
PostgreSQL only uses direct I/O for writing to the WAL; everything
else goes through the regular OS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:37:10 -0600
Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(welll, forced
> to) migrate to a new system with a sane drive configuration. The
> old set up was done horribly by a sysadmin who's no longer with us
> who set us up with a R
On Feb 15, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On Friday 15 February 2008 06:29, Greg Smith wrote:
PostgreSQL only uses direct I/O for writing to the WAL; everything
else
goes through the regular OS buffer cache unless you force it to do
otherwise at the OS level (like some Solaris setups
On Friday 15 February 2008 06:29, Greg Smith wrote:
> PostgreSQL only uses direct I/O for writing to the WAL; everything else
> goes through the regular OS buffer cache unless you force it to do
> otherwise at the OS level (like some Solaris setups do with
> forcedirectio).
Also, note that even wh
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Peter Schuller wrote:
Or is it a matter of PostgreSQL doing non-direct I/O, such that
anything cached in shared_buffers will also be cached by the OS?
PostgreSQL only uses direct I/O for writing to the WAL; everything else
goes through the regular OS buffer cache unless y
> PostgreSQL still depends on the OS for file access and caching. I
> think that the current recommendation is to have up to 25% of your
> RAM in the shared buffer cache.
This feels strange. Given a reasonable amount of RAM (let's say 8 GB
in this case), I cannot imagine why 75% of that would be e
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:35:29PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my impression has been that in the past, there has been a general
> semi-consensus that upping shared_buffers to use the majority of RAM
> has not generally been recommended, with reliance on the buffer cache
> instead be
Hello,
my impression has been that in the past, there has been a general
semi-consensus that upping shared_buffers to use the majority of RAM
has not generally been recommended, with reliance on the buffer cache
instead being the recommendation.
Given the changes that have gone into 8.3, in parti
11 matches
Mail list logo
