Hello People,
I upgraded to a 64 bits System. Now, everything is OK. Thnk you guys.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:19 AM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:27 PM, sriram.dandap...@bt.com wrote:
2G per process is plenty ...and useful if you have large data
: Sat 7/11/2009 3:04 AM
To: Anj Adu
Cc: Tino Schwarze; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Setting Shared-Buffers
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Anj Adufotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
You can use upto 64G of RAM on a 32 bit RHEL 5/ Fedora 8 OS using the kernel
PAE extension.
And it's
Hi Scott.
It worse... only 2 GB, although if you modify boot.ini and include /3G flag
it's possible to see 3GB per process (but some errors could emerge in certain
windows apps).
However, I was referring to Windows, where things are even worse, as
the OS only sees 3Gigs total cause
Thnks for the replyies.
It's a slony slave db, for reporting.
So, what's a good value to set to effective_cache_size with 10 Gb RAM?
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Scott Mead scott.li...@enterprisedb.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Rafael Domiciano
rafael.domici...@gmail.com
Rafael Domiciano rafael.domici...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what's a good value to set to effective_cache_size with 10 Gb
RAM?
It depends on how many other things you have on the system which are
using RAM, but probably something around 9GB would be appropriate.
Maybe even 9.5GB.
-Kevin
--
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 08:49:40AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
So, what's a good value to set to effective_cache_size with 10 Gb
RAM?
It depends on how many other things you have on the system which are
using RAM, but probably something around 9GB would be appropriate.
Maybe even
Tino Schwarze postgre...@tisc.de wrote:
I've seen PostgreSQL perform a lot worse after setting
effective_cache_size to 2 GB on a 8 GB dedicated database system.
The planner started ignoring indices and doing sequential scans.
Lowering effective_cache_size to 512 MB solved that.
You'd
You can use upto 64G of RAM on a 32 bit RHEL 5/ Fedora 8 OS using the kernel
PAE extension.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Tino Schwarze postgre...@tisc.de wrote:
Hi Rafael,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 07:18:55PM -0300, Rafael Domiciano wrote:
Today, I've upgraded a dedicated postgres server,
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Anj Adufotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
You can use upto 64G of RAM on a 32 bit RHEL 5/ Fedora 8 OS using the kernel
PAE extension.
And it's about 15% slower, and pgsql itself can only access ~2 or 3G
shared and 2G per process. I routinely set shared_buffers to well
Oh wait, that was a different thread. info still holds though.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Scott Marlowescott.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Anj Adufotogra...@gmail.com wrote:
You can use upto 64G of RAM on a 32 bit RHEL 5/ Fedora 8 OS using the kernel
PAE
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:27 PM, sriram.dandap...@bt.com wrote:
2G per process is plenty ...and useful if you have large data warehouse style
queries which are long running (especially multiple of those)
For you, yes. But not necessarily for others.
We do benefit from the Linux memory
Hello People,
Today, I've upgraded a dedicated postgres server, from 2 Gb to 10 Gb.
Everything gone well.
But, I would like shared buffers to use at least 5 Gb of the total memory.
Setting kernel.shmmax with 6291456000 (6000 Mb) is not working properly, the
server is changing the value to a
Hi Rafael,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 07:18:55PM -0300, Rafael Domiciano wrote:
Today, I've upgraded a dedicated postgres server, from 2 Gb to 10 Gb.
Everything gone well.
But, I would like shared buffers to use at least 5 Gb of the total memory.
Setting kernel.shmmax with 6291456000 (6000
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Rafael Domiciano rafael.domici...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello People,
Today, I've upgraded a dedicated postgres server, from 2 Gb to 10 Gb.
Everything gone well.
But, I would like shared buffers to use at least 5 Gb of the total memory.
What's your workload?
14 matches
Mail list logo
