Well, there's plenty of negatives to not doing it. Like postgresql's
large shared_buffers getting swapped out to make more space for disk
buffers. So, pgsql goes to grab data from shared buffers and has to
wait for the OS to swap them back in.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there any negative effects by doing this?
The swappiness is sitting on the default 60 at the moment.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:46:13 -0600, "Scott Marlowe"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>>
>> I recently made a change to my
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All
>
>
> I recently made a change to my Postgres Server and upped the max_fsm_page
> size to 6
> Since then, Postgres has been using about 30-80MB of swap space.
>
> This box has 4GB of RAM. All up Postgres has not been allocat
Hi All
I recently made a change to my Postgres Server and upped the max_fsm_page
size to 6
Since then, Postgres has been using about 30-80MB of swap space.
This box has 4GB of RAM. All up Postgres has not been allocated no more
than 3G
Is this swapping something to be worried about?
Chee
