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
10 matches
Mail list logo
