Jeff Janes wrote
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, pinker lt;
pinker@
gt; wrote:
Do you ever plan on restarting this server? Doing maintenance? Applying
security patches?
Sure, I assumed when db is up and running, of course after first read from
disk when whole data should be in RAM.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:07 AM, pinker pin...@onet.eu wrote:
btw. 512MB if we assume up to 600 connection is a reasonable value?
Reasonable value for what?
For normal server load.
512MB is being questioned as a reasonable value for what? shared_buffers?
work_mem?
On 13/08/2014 17:23, Jeff Janes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 1:07 AM, pinker pin...@onet.eu
mailto:pin...@onet.eu wrote:
btw. 512MB if we assume up to 600 connection is a reasonable value?
Reasonable value for what?
For normal server load.
512MB is
Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with my colleague about shared
buffers size for our new server. This machine (is dedicated for db) has got
512GB of RAM and database size is about 80GB, so he assumes that db will
never have to read from disk, so there is no point to adjust read ahead
On 8/12/2014 2:41 PM, pinker wrote:
btw. 512MB if we assume up to 600 connection is a reasonable value?
thats an insanely high connection count, if you actually expect those
connections to be executing concurrent queries, unless you have
something north of 100 CPU cores.
you'd be much
yes, I know the count is quite high. It is the max value we've
estimated, but probably on average day it will be 100-200, and yes we
use pgpool.
Am 13.08.2014 00:09, schrieb John R Pierce:
On 8/12/2014 2:41 PM, pinker wrote:
btw. 512MB if we assume up to 600 connection is a reasonable value?
On 8/12/2014 3:29 PM, pinker wrote:
yes, I know the count is quite high. It is the max value we've
estimated, but probably on average day it will be 100-200, and yes we
use pgpool.
if you're using a pooler, then why would you be using 200 concurrent
connections, unless you have a 50 or 100
Ok, I wasn't precisely enough, you are right. It's brand new server,
nothing is yet configured and we have not even os installed. The number
was the overall count we expect for a whole cluster.
But the main question is: is it possible to completely avoid disk read
if there is huge amount of
On 8/12/2014 3:52 PM, pinker wrote:
Ok, I wasn't precisely enough, you are right. It's brand new server,
nothing is yet configured and we have not even os installed. The
number was the overall count we expect for a whole cluster.
But the main question is: is it possible to completely avoid
Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with my colleague about shared
buffers size for our new server. This machine (is dedicated for db) has got
512GB of RAM and database size is about 80GB, so he assumes that db will
never have to read from disk, so there is no point to adjust read ahead
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014, pinker pin...@onet.eu wrote:
Yesterday I had an interesting discussion with my colleague about shared
buffers size for our new server. This machine (is dedicated for db) has got
512GB of RAM and database size is about 80GB, so he assumes that db will
never have to
11 matches
Mail list logo
