On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> For comparison, I have these settings on my laptop:
>
> pro:~ tgl$ cat /etc/sysctl.conf
> kern.sysv.shmmax=33554432
> kern.sysv.shmmin=1
> kern.sysv.shmmni=32
> kern.sysv.shmseg=8
> kern.sysv.shmall=8192
>
> and PG starts fine for me.
I'm not sure
Gavin Kistner writes:
> Mac OS X 10.6.3
> Built and installed PG 8.4.3 from source
> Trying to start the server, I get "could not create shared memory segment:
> Invalid argument".
OSX is *notoriously* unfriendly about configuring shm parameters.
You look at it sidewise, it doesn't work, and gen
Mac OS X 10.6.3
Built and installed PG 8.4.3 from source
Trying to start the server, I get "could not create shared memory segment:
Invalid argument".
I've bumped my shmmax/shmall and related parameters as suggested in the README
for the one-click installer (which I installed and then uninstalle
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Scott Whitney wrote:
> During the testing that I did when moving from pg7 to pg8 a few years back, I
> didn't notice any particular performance
> increase on a similarly-configured server.
>
> That is, we've got 14 disks (15k rpm) striped in a single RAID10 array.
Peter, thank you for your efforts in try to help me and sorry for send the
message directly to you, not for the list.
No success yet - I'm starting (and stoping) manually the 2 extra services.
About the locale, I removed this option at initdb - I will try to solve this
after the service is running
During the testing that I did when moving from pg7 to pg8 a few years back, I
didn't notice any particular performance
increase on a similarly-configured server.
That is, we've got 14 disks (15k rpm) striped in a single RAID10 array. Moving
the logs to an internal RAID
versus leaving them on
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Anj Adu wrote:
> With the increase in the number of disks that we can afford to have in
> 1 box..we will definitely plan on having WAL on dedicated disks.
> Previously..we were stuck with the chassis limitation of 6 disks per
> box.
Yeah, the smallest machine I us
With the increase in the number of disks that we can afford to have in
1 box..we will definitely plan on having WAL on dedicated disks.
Previously..we were stuck with the chassis limitation of 6 disks per
box.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:26
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Anj Adu wrote:
> All the disks are usually laid out in a single RAID 10 stripe . There
> are no dedicated disks for the OS/WAL as storage is a premium
You should at least investigate the performance difference of having a
separate volume for WAL files on your sys
I also want to add that with the perc 6i controllers..we have never
had issues. We have been running postgres nonstop for over 2 years and
sustaining a throughput of over 60-100 million messages a day without
breaking sweat. (postgres 8.1.9 on linux 32 bit )
I have to say I am impressed with the st
All the disks are usually laid out in a single RAID 10 stripe . There
are no dedicated disks for the OS/WAL as storage is a premium
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Anj Adu wrote:
>>
>> We do not archive the WALs. We use application-level replication to
>> achieve redundancy.
"Campbell, Lance" writes:
> Thanks. Do I add the following to the postgresql.conf file?
> ssl_renegotiation_limit = 0
Right. The variable won't be listed in your existing file, likely,
because that option is new as of last month's updates.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent vi
Tom,
Thanks. Do I add the following to the postgresql.conf file?
ssl_renegotiation_limit = 0
Thanks,
Lance Campbell
Software Architect/DBA/Project Manager
Web Services at Public Affairs
217-333-0382
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 2
13 matches
Mail list logo
