Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
[ resuming an old thread ] "Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I also tried different settings (shmall set to 500K) and shmmax ended up at > -1. So, it seems that shmall is in pages. I didn't try other allowable > configs, which was a problem before. I went back and experimented some

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-30 Thread Luke Lonergan
Jeff, On 8/30/05 5:28 AM, "Jeff Trout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just ran software update and (besides a couple apps) it had a > security update. I just did that to test this. > skittlebrau:~ postgres$ grep shm /etc/rc Luke-Lonergans-Computer:~ lukelonergan$ cat /etc/sysctl.conf kern.sysv.s

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-30 Thread Jeff Trout
On Aug 30, 2005, at 12:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Did that. Set shmall first, shmall second, both together in one sysctl command; no joy anywhere. Are you trying this on fully up-to-date Tiger? Just ran software update and (besides a couple apps) it had a security update. skittlebrau:~

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-30 Thread Dave Cramer
This is from my Powerbook in /etc/rc sysctl -w kern.sysv.shmmax=512 kern.sysv.shmmin=1 kern.sysv.shmmni=32 kern.sysv.shmseg=8 kern.sysv.shmall=1024 I also had to up maxprocperuid to 200 to get buildfarm to run I'm pretty sure shmall had to be increased to allow shmmax to be increased.

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Luke Lonergan
Tom, On 8/29/05 9:37 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did that. Set shmall first, shmall second, both together in one sysctl > command; no joy anywhere. Are you trying this on fully up-to-date > Tiger? Did you try the values I sent earlier? If you set them both in /etc/sysctl.conf

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Aug 29, 2005, at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Has anyone been able to set kern.sysv.shmmax above 4MB at all in >> latest OS X? > yeah, you need to set shmmax and shmall. Did that. Set shmall first, shmall second, both together in one sysctl command; no jo

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Thomas F. O'Connell
On Aug 29, 2005, at 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: After restarting, I have: # sysctl -a | grep shm kern.sysv.shmmax: 134217728 kern.sysv.shmmin: 1 kern.sysv.shmmni: 32 kern.sysv.shmseg: 8 kern.sysv.shmall: 1024 Of course, this still doesn'

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Tom Lane
"Thomas F. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After restarting, I have: > # sysctl -a | grep shm > kern.sysv.shmmax: 134217728 > kern.sysv.shmmin: 1 > kern.sysv.shmmni: 32 > kern.sysv.shmseg: 8 > kern.sysv.shmall: 1024 > Of course, this still doesn't seem to be enough to let postgres play

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Luke Lonergan
Tom, On 8/29/05 6:41 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting. I wonder if there's some bit of code that thinks that > SHMALL is measured in bytes (contrary to OSX's general convention > that it's measured in pages). I don't know, but I agree that the behavior has changed from Pa

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Thomas F. O'Connell
In order to get postgres working in concert with an iSight on a PowerBook, I had to increase shmmax, and it seemed to work just fine by editing /etc/rc: sysctl -w kern.sysv.shmmax=134217728 kern.sysv.shmmin=1 kern.sysv.shmmni=32 kern.sysv.shmseg=8 kern.sysv.shmall=1024 After restarting, I

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Jeff -
On Aug 29, 2005, at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Has anyone been able to set kern.sysv.shmmax above 4MB at all in latest OS X? I just spent a while trying what seemed every possible permutation of setting up /etc/sysctl.conf and editing /etc/rc directly, and it just fails (symptom: sysctl sho

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Tom Lane
"Luke Lonergan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes - it's very strange, I've had the same experience though I finally found > that setting SHMMAX and SHMALL to the same values, namely 268435456, seems > to work out fine. Interesting. I wonder if there's some bit of code that thinks that SHMALL is

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: Has anyone been able to set kern.sysv.shmmax above 4MB at all in latest OS X? I just spent a while trying what seemed every possible permutation of setting up /etc/sysctl.conf and editing /etc/rc directly, and it just fails (symptom: sysctl shows shmmax as -1, and Postgres canno

Re: [HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Luke Lonergan
Tom, On 8/29/05 5:18 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone been able to set kern.sysv.shmmax above 4MB at all in latest > OS X? I just spent a while trying what seemed every possible > permutation of setting up /etc/sysctl.conf and editing /etc/rc directly, > and it just fails (

[HACKERS] SHMMAX seems entirely broken in OS X 10.4.2

2005-08-29 Thread Tom Lane
Has anyone been able to set kern.sysv.shmmax above 4MB at all in latest OS X? I just spent a while trying what seemed every possible permutation of setting up /etc/sysctl.conf and editing /etc/rc directly, and it just fails (symptom: sysctl shows shmmax as -1, and Postgres cannot start). Grrr. A